In the early 1960s, as the Great Leap Forward led China into political, social and economic disasters, the opposition to Mao Zedong’s leadership grew; Chairman Mao’s reaction was to purge the party leadership of intellectuals and officials in what is now termed, “the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.”
Mao Zedong’s hold on the leadership of China was shaky as he passed 70; even slaughtering more of his enemies and rivals wasn’t working. On July 16th 1966, Mao sought to debunk rumors that he was frail and ill by staging photographs of him vigorously swimming in the Yangtze River. It was called, “The Swim Seen Round the World.” The Chinese press did its job, describing Mao’s cheeks as “glowing” and “ruddy,” his stroke steady and strong. “Our respected and beloved leader Chairman Mao is in such wonderful health!” one press report enthused.
In the West, however, there was more skepticism. Time reported that Mao swam “nearly 15 km in 65 minutes that day–a world-record pace, if true.” The photos of the swim, which showed an oddly solemn group of floating heads, were widely believed to have been doctored. As it turned out, the photos were real; Mao really did take a swim, though the event was staged, and nobody knows how long the swim lasted or how far Mao paddled. What are such photo ops? Are they deceptive? Are they ethical?The issue was raised after Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, complained that the Romney-Ryan campaign “ramrodded their way” into the group’s Youngstown soup kitchen so that the GOP vice presidential candidate could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall. The press, dutifully following the Obama campaign mantra that Paul Ryan is a liar, made a big deal out of this. Once it had done its part, the Washington Post today contributed a feature story suggesting that Ryan’s soup kitchen photo-op was really no different from other staged photos of political figures:
“Virtually every image you see of a candidate on the trail is contrived. Those old photos of Clinton jogging? Or Reagan on a horse? Or Bush clearing brush on his Texas ranch, or Obama shooting hoops? Or anyone eyeballing livestock at a state fair while seeking national office? Someone on staff had to set up those scenarios and beckon the photographers over for the shot. It’s the definition of the photo op — and everyone does it.”
That was fair of the Post to note, if a little late. Still, the practice is misleading, and if news outlets like the Post know that the event or photo op is staged, then it is a breach of their duty as journalists to present such photos as “news.” They aren’t news. They are marketing, or they are propaganda, like Mao’s swim. True, some staged photos are more unethical than others. If Mao had to be taken off an iron lung and propped up in the river by a frogman, that would have been an outrageous deception. At least he really did go for swim. Does Paul Ryan ever work in soup kitchens when photographers aren’t around? If not, then the much-criticized photo-op was in the worst category of staged deceit. Babe Ruth reportedly never visited a sick kid in the hospital without photographers in tow; Ted Williams’ devotion to child cancer victims was usually without publicity, and he visited children at the hospital on his own time, privately. There is a big difference, and the news media should make the distinction clear.
Without press cooperation, this traditional conspiracy to mislead the public would be pointless. “President Bush clears brush on his ranch in a staged photo-op. Usually the President pays a ranch hand to do this when photographers aren’t around.” If that’s really the truth, then that is how the media should be obligated to report it. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and if a campaign or an elected official’s PR staff plans a photo that conveys misleading information, whether “everybody does it” or not, the term that sums up those thousand words is “lies.”
___________________________________
Sources:
- Washington Post
- Iconic Photos (also Graphic)
Ethics Alarms 
Objection to one of the Post’s points: Ronald Reagan on a horse was not a mere photo op. The man rode horses, not too unlike a Hell’s Angels member rides motorbikes.
The unethical part is not the fake dish washing. It’s that the organization, in its bylaws, is apolitical. The Romney/Ryan campaign did not get permission to visit the soup kitchen,instead they made an unannounced visit and talked their way in with a volunteer. Maybe everybody does that, too, but it’s higher on the unethical scale in my book.
Yes, good point, and I agree completely.
But there’s a big difference between inviting photographers to take pictures of something the candidate does anyway. Candidates frequently do town hall events, for instance, even if they make sure to wear a tie and look their best at the event they’ve invited a photographer to. There are a zillion photos of Bush, Obama, etc, working in the Oval Office, and although I’m sure they’re staged, it’s also true that both men worked there. Reagan rode horses, Obama shoots hoops, and Clinton jogged. None of these were made-up stories, even if the photos were staged, and none of them involved turning an unwilling charitable groups real-life good works into props.
I think the Post’s article was a pretty clear example of “false equivalency.” They’re trying to downplay how incredibly cynical and unethical Ryan’s photo-op was by pretending “everyone does it”; but the weakness of the other examples they provided just show that no, it’s not true that everyone does it. Bullying your way into an empty soup kitchen where you haven’t been invited, so that you can pretend to wash clean dishes, is significantly worse than what other Presidents and candidates typically do, and it’s obviously newsworthy behavior. It’s only because you’re so partisan that you imply it was biased for the media to report on it.
I agree with all of this, though it isn’t just “does Obama play basketball,” but “Does Obama play basketball with inner city highschoolers when it isn’t a photo op?” That was the point of the Babe Ruth-Ted Williams comparison. Yes, excusing Ryan because staff staged photos of Ronnie doing what he did anyway is really ridiculous—but then, Mao really did go swimming, when he was younger. So the hierarchy, from most to least ethical, is…
1. Spontaneous event, captured as it happened.
2. Spontaneous event, recreated for photographers.
3. Characteristic conduct, recreated for photographers. (Reagan on a horse)
4. Genuine conduct that only took place so a photo could be taken of it. (Obama playing basketball with kids)
5. Misleading conduct, photographed to deceive (Mao’s dip)
6. Contrived conduct staged for photographers. (Ryan)
7. Uncharacteristic, contrived conduct, staged and intended to deceive (Perhaps Ryan)
8. Fake conduct, fake photo (What Time thought the Mao photo was.
Did I miss any?
That does seem to cover it!
I didn’t know about the basketball game with inner city youth. I don’t think that’s unethical, but I agree, it’s different from a photo of him playing basketball with his typical hoop friends.
I’ll also add that, although I think Ryan’s soup kitchen photo shows that Ryan is kind of a jerk, it doesn’t matter much to me. In the end, if I lived in a swing state, I’d vote for Obama because I think his policies are better, and many ordinary people will be better off if Obama wins re-election. And I’d vote for him on the same grounds even if I thought Obama was a jerkbag and Romney was a genuinely swell guy.
Of course, I don’t live in a swing state, so who I vote for is entirely irrelevant. 🙂
I think you have them all. Unfortunately I think that 7. Uncharacteristic, contrived conduct, staged and intended to deceive (Perhaps Ryan) is the more likely in this case. If it were Romney I may see it around number 4. As for them forcing themselves into the soup kitchen I am skeptical of it and I think it has been walked back some, I almost smell a bit of a set up on the part of the kitchen. But as for your analysis of staged photos I think you are spot on.
Could you give a link to the “walking back” part by the soup kitchen?
15 minutes. Volunteering for 15 minutes after asking the dishes be kept dirty for you is never going to be genuine conduct.