I'd like to just take a moment to talk to you all about a subject that concerns me considerably: Biased political photgraphy. I see this sort of bias every day in the media and it sickens me. The visual representations we receive of our political hopefuls goes a long way towards deciding elections. It's sad, but it's true.
Take a look at the photos used in the Newsweek article for the Nevada senate election between Ensign (R) and Carter (D). You tell me there's not a blatant bias in the photos they've selected.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
In Ensign's photo, the candidate is seen at a podium, answering IMPORTANT questions, looking IMPORTANT, wearing a nice suit, double-thumbs up. Kindly look on his face. Bold colors, good contrast.
The Carter photo, on the other hand, looks yellowed and washed-out. Bad contrast. Carter's neck is twisted at an uncomfortable angle. He's squinting and appears to be scowling, and his teeth look dingy and decaying.
Now, obviously, there has to be a much better photo out there of Carter, and surely there are worse photos of Ensign. So why is it that Ensign's photo looks like a PR shot and Carter's looks like a still from Dawn of the Dead?
I would very much like to see an honest, open debate about this. if you can cite and/or show other examples of this sort of bias, whether from the Left or the Right, I welcome them.
Before this discussion begins, however, let me make one thing clear: I'm talking about bias in journalism, not bias in political campaigns. We've come to expect the very worst photos of candidates from the campaigns of political opponents, so they don't count. What counts is when a publication such as the New York Times or Newsweek publishes photos with such a striking variation in tone and quality, when they proclaim themselves to be politically neutral.
Have at it.