Holy Crap!
When I put up yesterday’s post about Nancy Pelosi’s excessive and uncivil accusations about Republicans, I went searching for an appropriate photo. I found one that I came this close to using, because it was angry, like the quote, and just a little bit deranged-looking. (Pelosi has a lot of photos out there that make her look quite mad.) I didn’t use it. I decided it wasn’t fair.
Of course, I have to try to be fair; I’m an ethicist, and this is an ethics blog. Journalists, however, don’t…wait, aren’t they supposed to be fair too?
Not in Tina Brown’s book, or rather magazine. Newsweek made the choice to be the MSNBC of pulp even before Brown took over, and now it is officially shameless. Because Newsweek, like its almost as moribund rival Time, once was a respected journalistic enterprise, some of Newsweek’s now non-operable reputation for integrity remains. It can still do damage with its cheap tricks. That’s why its wild-eyed cover photo of Michele Bachman is so despicable.
Newsweek doesn’t like Bachmann; that’s clear from the article, a real hit job. It doesn’t excuse making her look like Jared Loughner, in a photo that appears to be the profile picture she would use to get a date with Voldemort.
When I noted that Newsweek’s cover photo of Speaker John Boehner made him look like a denizen of Hell, some readers said I was imagining things. Right. Just as I imagined that Time and Newsweek were in overdrive during the 2008 campaign to pump up candidate Obama using heroic imagery that would give Leni Riefenstahl goose-bumps. Now Newsweek is at it again. I wrote in that post that “we can undoubtedly expect future covers featuring Chis Cristy with a Snidely Whiplash mustache drawn on his face in crayon and Jim DeMint wearing devil horns.” I didn’t one showing Bachmann as a supporting actress in the non-traditional casting version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” but I should have.
I am really sick of this stuff, I have to admit it. I don’t even like Michele Bachmann; in fact, I think it’s an embarrassment that enough people will vote for her that she is even a factor in national politics. Bachmann, however, should stand or fall on her merits, and not have the public brainwashed against her by manipulated images created by media moguls who think they should dictate who are the “right” people for Americans to vote for. Images are very powerful, and photojournalism is capable of at least as much bias as the written kind, but perhaps more insidiously, since photos always appear to be “real,” and therefore objective. Ethics? Tina Brown don’t need no stinkin’ ethics! Still, the National Press Photographers Association has a Code of Ethics, which Brown happily stomped all over with the Bachmann cover. The relevant sections, with my comments underscored:
Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:
1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [Accurate? The photo of Bachmann is not fair, and is therefore not accurate.]
2. …
3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one’s own biases in the work. [The entire piece in Newsweek stereotypes Bachman as a religious zealot, but the photo is the main offender. Eyes like that evoke Rasputin.]
4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. [Treat all subjects with respect and dignity, except Tea Party politicians, who deserve to be smeared. (The Brown version. Actually the entire mainstream media version, but I digress.)]
5. …
6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.[Bachmann’s image is as manipulated as Time’s infamous O.J. photo, darkened to make him seem sinister. In this case, lighting and contrast have been used to make Bachmann look crazy.]
Count the media as one more component of our political culture determined to undermine trust and obscure truth at a time when the nation most needs honesty, fairness, and clarity.
Ethics Alarms 
Between this and the Diana issue, I’m ready to drop my Newsweek subscription. I find Bachmann despicable myself, and apart from the obvious journalistic integrity breach that you’ve mentioned, this sort of thing just gives more ammo to the “lamestream media” howling crowd.
I have to admit though, I was just watching Conan and couldn’t help laughing at the fun he had with the Newsweek cover.
Well, you know, if the media keeps giving their critics ammunition, the argument that the critics have trumped up the charges begins to look pretty weak.
The reason the Right claims that the media is biased is because the media is biased. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.
This has always bugged me.
It’s unfair to doctor photos in such ways. It’s not right no matter who is doing it or why they are doing it or to whom they are doing it to.
This brings up an age old question: Would Abraham Lincoln be elected today?
Never. Wayyyy too old.
…plus, I think he’s dead.
–Dwayne
What leads you to believe the photo was doctored? She looks like this frequently. But to choose it as the cover of the mag is unfair and unneeded. Michelle Bachmann is going to hang herself by her own petard soon enough. I truly believe the American public will see through her craziness eventually and pick some more worthy opponent for Obama.
She doesn’t look like THAT. Photos freeze time…one millisecond frozen from a selected angle, cropped,lightened or darkened for effect. if she looked like that, nobody would go near her.
There I go, being unclear again. Michele does have a tendency to look cross-eyed–I had noticed it before this photo and in many caricatures of her. Newsweek, apparently, deliberately chose an unflattering millisecond for their cover, but I don’t believe it was necessary to doctor it.
Is using Nazi imagary ever ethical?
Sure! If the individual is in fact a Nazi. Or Rich Iott.
Jack,
You didn’t exactly pick the most flattering of Pelosi photos, either. Granted, she doesn’t look as wild eyed and out there as Michelle Bachmann, but it does give her a definite “old crone” vibe. Just sayin’
-Neil
It’s pretty representative, I thought. The touched up portrait photos aren’t, for sure. There are no flattering photos of Nancy.
Jack,
I beg to differ. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen her look better.
-Neil
It’s nice to know that teenage boys are eager to participate in grown-up discussions. 😛
Newsweek released a bunch of outtakes from their bachmann shoot; http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2011/08/08/michelle-bachmann-newsweek-cover-photos.html
She looks pretty wild in several of them. She actually often has a wild look. cosmetic contacts?.
After looking at the outtakes, I’ve altered my opinion. That’s just what Michelle Bachmann looks like, and we’d be having the same conversation if they used a photo that didn’t make her look a little wild.
I don’t think lousy photography is a defense. They could easily, EASILY, do the same to Hillary, who is also prone to wild looks, popping eyes, etc. They don’t. They wouldn’t dare. Bachmann, like Palin, is pre-approved for abuse…except that it is apparently next to impossible to make Sarah look bad. She is authentically photogenic.
I admittedly have no eye for art or photography. Exposure, shading…all these things have to be quite exaggerated for me to notice them. After looking at them more carefully, I really can’t say that the photos themselves are lousy as that’s what Bachmann always looks like, whether I see her on CNN, Fox, or any other medium.
Newsweek manages to demonstrate all three of Dwayne’s 3 forms of media bias in a single photograph. Huzzah!!!
–Dwayne
Dwayne is referencing this Comment of the Day, of which he is justly proud.
HIllary had the pop-eyed pix in 2008, esp. once Obama was pulling ahead. Palin has unattractive photos, but there’s an underlying pretty to her (I don’t like her or how she acts/thinks, but she is pretty). Bachmann has a pop-eyed problem worse than Hillary. I’ve seen her LIVE on tv looking like she’s about to pop contacts across the Grand Canyon. Marlene’s right; she just often looks like that. OFTEN. But they could have picked a nice one, or kept shooting til they got one. But I admit to having a tiny inner titter everytime I see one where the CRAZY I think is in her head is right there ON HER FACE.
Marlene is right, that IS what she looks like. Watching the Republican debate I concluded that she looks EXACTLY like the Newsweek cover. Good job, Newsweek.
My God—she freezes like that, and doesn’t move? Talk about a disability! Migraines are nothing compared to that.
Gags aside, I watched the debate. Bachmann is attractive, and not unphotogenic at all. I’d say the smoking gun was Tina Brown’s statement, ‘Some people look at this picture [the cover] and think, you know, Michele Bachmann looks crazy. Some people look at it and think it’s the next President of the United States. The fact that these two things are no longer mutually exclusive is what, I think, makes it pretty compelling.” I take this as a tacit admission from the publisher that the cover was intended to make “The Queen of Rage” (I didn’t deal with the headline under the photo, and perhaps should have) look nuts.
So, I first heard about this issue by catching up with Jon Stewart. He blasted Newsweek in much the same manner.
I have 2 thoughts:
1) After reviewing the “Daily Beast” outtakes, there were definitely more flattering pictures to use.
2) I think this photo lends itself to generating a knee-jerk dislike at first. After sitting with it for a moment, I think it’s fine. May even give her the platform to be “Serious” instead of “Pretty”. Whereas people might have said, “I don’t know if we should elect a softie without a bad side…” I think this allows people to consider she may be strong.
(p.s. I don’t endorse MB….just analyzing.)
Tina Brown’s comments about the cover pretty much confirmed Newsweek’s motive and bias. The rag has done flattering covers when it chooses to, of people a lot less attractive than Bachmann. (By the way, if you haven’t seen Funny or Die’s video about the Bachmann shoot, you should.)