Reading The Pictures: On Verge Of Nomination Speech, Obama The Menace

As the convention pivots, turning its attention to the nominee, I'm concerned in advance as to how the traditional media will frame (poor choice of words, I hope) Barack Obama.  If the cover of TIME's convention preview is any indication, however, we're in trouble.  (By the way, I have examples in hand of three more convention-related publication covers that will really trouble you.  I just need to find a scanner from the middle of the media/blogging beehive I'm in to bring them to you.)

Compare the new TIME cover with their October '06 edition when Obama was still, what they termed, a "fresh face" (as opposed to a man, they see now, as having at least five of them).  What was a smile then has turned toward a grimace.  The eyes are slightly narrowed conveying more wariness, even skepticism.  And then, in place of the white background and the proclamation of a title, Obama floats ominously in the dark, the color contrast and his merger with the shadows making him darker as well.

For more of the visual, including our continuous coverage of the DNC live from Denver, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.

(image 1: Barack Obama, image 2: Platon for TIME)

Comments

[ArmyCentrist]

Nothing frightened me more than Putin's TIME cover...which, incidentally, looked more like Barack's first time cover...just goes to show, it 's not the picture, it's the man in the picture (b/c neither of those covers of Barack scare me)

[Mahi Joe]

At least they have Obama looking you straight in the eyes whereas, McCain's special coverage issue is sure to have Mc's portrait shown in profile.

[XME]

The second cover is definitely worse, but neither photo is great...they look like they got too close with a wide-angle lens.

[InofTouch]

I like the second one...it it say that it all about Obama and if you READ what inside, maybe you might learn.

talk about judgeing a book...or this case a magazine.

[pundit27]

With due respect to you, Mr. Shaw, I don't think Time's editors nor readers share your analysis . . . you could have just as easily said the magazine was trying to allay fears of Obama by making his skin tone lighter than before . . . or is that just because of that menacing dark background? . . the challenge of visual interpretation is always over-seeing . . .

[americaforme]

Time is something else, who cares if the photos are enhanced. If anything the serious close up reveals much in the eyes. Perhalps thats what they were really after, the eyes are the window to the soul, it bothers me that his eyes dont twinkle with light. Naturaly in these dark days were anxious to check out our leaders.

[lovethesinner]

They called Abe Lincoln a monkey, and it worked for him. All that happened was some kid wrote him a letter and he grew a beard.

I just noticed, Barack even has a mole like Lincoln. The interesting thing about being visually associated with Abe Lincoln and MLK while being verbally associated with Osama bin Laden is finding out which is more powerful.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. How many pictures of Obama are there out there? And how long have we been looking at them?

:-)

[metivo]

You can tell by ultra-tiny details like errant eyebrow hairs that these are both the same image. To me, it looks as though in the top photo his blemishes and wrinkles are softened. Yes, photoshopped, but not in a bad way; it still looks natural.

But the bottom version is much more harsh and unforgiving. When you darken the background and eliminate everything but the face, it becomes a very different image. Most especially is the bottom half of his face where the creases on either side are pronounced and his bottom jaw looks narrower.

This is not neurotic nitpicking. I can see this with just a cursory look at both photos. And it is very unsettling that Time would decide to run this version of a previous cleaned-up image. Why??

[mrschief93]

On the Time website they have the covers of this week's magazine for the different areas of the world they are distributed to. The cover for distribution in the US is the only one that looks as if it has been altered to appear worse. The 3 other covers look untouched. As a mother of two girls I already have to worry about magazines altering images of females to make them appear perfect which sets regular women and girls up for diappointment in themselves, but to know that a respected publication like TIME magazine would stoop to altering photos to influence people is quite disheartening. I hope that people see this for what it is and they vote on the issues, not photos.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601080901,00.html

[nellie]

I think Obama is well aware that his real opponent this election cycle is the media.

That's why he's concentrating on a ground game and emphasizing the breadth of his support. His voter registration drive is essential. And his use of the web and new media is very smart. He'll get no objectivity from television or corporate publications. And all the while, the media will continue to snuggle McCain in that cozy security blanket.

[Lilybart]

We have to win in spite of the media. The media thinks THEY are the story.

[zell]

These covers are the same type covers that Time and others used to show OJ Simpson during his trial. The MSM has a reputation for trying to show Black men in a negative light, even if their salary is at the top of the totem pole. So, we must ignore these magazine covers and continue to support Barack and VOTE for him in November!!!!!

[radmul]

Perhaps I am just paranoid but this reminds me of the way they portrayed O.J.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/012306.php

[jdj81]

"What was a smile then has turned toward a grimace." Are you serious?!

Pro-tip: IT'S THE SAME PICTURE! They're using the same photo for both covers. The differences between the two versions come entirely from (a lot of) Photoshop magic. In other words, both covers feature the same facial expression.

(Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing.)

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

I think you're right but I see a complete change in all the colors,facial tones had a completely different appearance,completely different colors.Also the image was magnified and all his features with the color change taken into account are greatly exaggerated.The first picture he looks more friendly.You're correct about photoshop magic but the overall appearance changed his demeanor to a less friendly and more ominous look.Why did they Photoshop?Why not a new photo,I'm sure they have some extra's laying around.This was intentional.

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

I would like to add to my previous comment,if you have a zoom feature on your browser or mouse you can zoom the photos and you'll see the the second photo shows all his skin pores and blemishes while the first picture looks muted either way.

[LRM216]

Why do people have to pick everything apart. Isn't life difficult enough without looking through a magnifyng glass and dissecting everything. If one looks at two photos within a two year period, one would expect to see changes. I hardly think TIME is being evil or deceptive in using this picture. And, if by chance, they are, then McCain's ought to be a real doozy!

[cobobs]

So true, why do people pick everything apart? Because the others are not leaving anything to chance either. Choice of front page subject and design is not a trivial decision at major magazines...serious meetings at which every nuance is examined.

[Summer71]

What's menacing about that cover? I don't see anything menacing about it and for the life of me the only thing I can think you're talking about is the fact that he's black.

[Missmn]

This would explain why the editor of Time was quick to point out that the new cover featuring McCain that goes on sale tomorrow was shot by the same photographer.