« Thanks, John! (Part II) | Main | White Smoke »
April 19, 2005
Bias in Images?
Ace is wondering whether bias exists in the ways conservatives are portrayed on magazine covers versus the way liberals are. Well, here are examples of Time magazine just before the election.
Note the squinty-eyed expression on Bush versus the glow of Kerry and Edwards. Probably not bias, though. Nope...
Want more evidence?
President Clinton's Man of the Year cover:
Newt Gingrich's Man of the Year Cover:
Join the fun. Time has an archive of its covers available. Compare and contrast.
Welcome Ace readers.
And there's more.
Michael Moore - concerned about our troops and thoughtful:
Rush Limbaugh - obviously evil. I mean, just look at the menacing smoke and the cigar.
Some readers have commented that the Bush picture looks pretty good. I think black and white can look great, but they didn't pick the best picture of the president. I mean, look at Kerry in this one:
Smiling, thoughful, etc.
And the smoke in the Limbaugh picture was airbrushed.
Posted by slublog at April 19, 2005 10:19 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1155
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bias in Images?:
» Still More On Liberals Photographing Conservatives from Ace of Spades HQ
From a poster, who says he's a photographer: I have a lot to say about this issue. As a conservative and a professional photographer who has photog. friends who have photographed major politicians and world figures for such magazines as... [Read More]
Tracked on April 19, 2005 10:58 AM
» Quick Links from The (not so) Daily Me
** So he didn't make it after all...
** Now, if we can just get Frist and Reid to be like that... (hat tip: INDC Journal)
** Yay! I got modded +5 on /. I am such a geek.
** There is no liberal media bias. Especially not in pictures. *snicker, ... [Read More]
Tracked on April 26, 2005 11:20 PM
Comments
I dunno, that cover of GWB is pretty good. He has a kind of Clint Eastwood look about him--relaxed, informal, and mighty handsome. Of course, that pic of Laura is 100% ass. Laura's one fine looking woman, you have to work pretty hard to make her look bad, but they managed it.
Posted by: rho at April 19, 2005 11:50 AM
The picture is pretty good, but in terms of comparison to the Kerry/Edwards pic, it's pretty weak. The Kedwards pic makes the duo look glowing and new in comparison to the tired old black and white Bush.
I think what bothers me the most is the bleedin' obviousness of it. It's like a bad campaign commercial where the opponent is in b&w while the preferred candidate is in color.
Posted by: Slublog at April 19, 2005 11:57 AM
The Rush photo makes him look demonic, but in all fairness, he may have done his part to appear so. To me the M. Moore cover is the most offensive. Him holding America in his hands.Like he is so powerful. And as if he is so concerned.
Posted by: jayne at April 19, 2005 12:42 PM
I like how the Moore cover shows a bloated, gaseous body visibly bulging at the equator.
Also, a picture of Saturn.
Posted by: Alan S. at April 19, 2005 01:40 PM
I think what bothers me the most is the bleedin' obviousness of it. It's like a bad campaign commercial where the opponent is in b&w while the preferred candidate is in color.
It's not just that -- it's more subliminal. They're trying to portray Bush, being conservative, as seeing everything as black & white -- his views being outdated and obsolete (think b&w TV)... while the 'progressive' candidates are NEW! and IMPROVED! and in color...like color TV.
Posted by: Michael Jones at April 19, 2005 02:24 PM
I think you missed the subtle subtext in the first one with the B&W Bush vs. color kerry.
The headlines says, "The world according to Bush," no Dick Cheney anywhere. Bush is sitting alone, on a log in the woods - i.e. - He's a loner, a go it alone kind of guy (aka Iraq, etc). They you have Kerry & Edwards. Together, "The Contenders", a mutual plural. They are "team players."
I actually think the Bush shot is great. He like to portray himself as the rugged texan, and the shot is reminiscent of old westerns. But maybe, like Micheal Jones said, that's the idea. Bush is an old hand, a throwback, whereas Kerry/Edwards are vibrant, modern, together.
Subtle, but I think it's there. The question is, do people really pick up on it unless you put it side by side?
Posted by: Partisan Pundit at April 25, 2005 07:36 AM
I for one think the Clinton cover makes him look, well, gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Posted by: Partisan Pundit at April 25, 2005 07:37 AM