Now I can understand why they’d lie about the timing missing explosives. I understand why they like about Kerry’s “flip-flops”. I understand why they lie about Bush’s opposition to gay rights.
I don’t approve, mind you; but I do understand why they do it or what they hope to accomplish.
But this one, I don’t get at all. What’s the point of it? Are they really trying to demonstrate that reality doesn’t matter?
Eh, I considered posting about this a couple of days ago when it first surfaced.
After looking at it, though, I don’t think the photo was altered in such a way that there’s any intent to mislead.
From the editor’s point of view, the subject of the photo is the background. (The ad is Bush plugging his respect for service members and their families.) If you left Bush in the photo, he’d be the primary focal point and most viewers wouldn’t even catch the audience in the brief time the photo is shown.
Obviously, they should have used an unaltered photo that just showed the crowd, and it was extremely naive (although certainly routine) of whoever cleaned the piccy up for the ad. Standard in advertising – stupid in political advertising.
Since it’s safe to assume that the reality was that the seats obscured by the podium and the president were occupied by servicemen, and not circus clowns or orangutangs, I think they get a pass on the charge of shenanigans for this one. It’s a compositional adjustment made by someone who was probably just told “We want a nice shot of soldiers in the crowd at one of Bush’s speeches,” and wasn’t used to having their work scrutinized for authenticity.
No biggee.
Nice work of the folks at Yahoo to confusingly caption the screen-grab of the doctored picture “original photograph,” though. Morons. (Gotta snark at someone in the Pit, right?)
I know it’s a no biggee.
It’s precisely the point that there was no need to do it that bugs me the most. Why do they want to alter reality for no good reason? The same thing could have been accomplished by cropping the image closer
To someone who works in advertising, improving composition is a good reason, and “altering reality” is what they get paid to do. Nothing is altered in a deceptive way, the image is just simplified so that what it’s intended to convey is more immediate.
Here’s the original photo for comparison. There isn’t really a way you could crop it that would be acceptable. You couldn’t remove Bush and keep the sense of scale intact, or keep the tow-headed flag-waver framed nicely, or whatever.
With Bush left in there, it’s going to take a second or so longer for the viewer to register “Wow, that’s a lot of loyal troops out for Bush.” That’s clearly the only motivation for the edit, and it’s not “lying,” since it’s not as though there’s an attempt to actually disassociate Bush from the troops – the association is already there through context.
It’s textbook ad communication, and it’s not like anyone running the campaign is going to be micromanaging the creation of the ad. They say, “Give us a message that communicates this,” and turn it over to the agency. The writers call for images of faithful troops, and the poor grunt who went through the available photos and cleaned up one enough to make it work for the ad is so far down the chain it isn’t funny. It’s such S.O.P. that it probably never occurred to anyone to point out that the image had been diddled with.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Bush/Cheney Admin and their campaigners are fundamentally a bunch of mendacious bastards. I just think this particular item is a total non-issue, and that it’s counter-productive to draw attention to it as a potential point of controversy, no matter how small.
That’s mor accountablilty out of the administration than I’ve seen in the last four years. If this had ever occured to anyone else in the administration, they’d probably be in much better shape for the eelction.
This is true. I took a class in limnology once (study of lakes) and the professor appologized for the textbook cover. He had supplied the publisher with a picture of Emerald Bay in Lake Tahoe and the cover editor had decided that it made a better frame for the title if it was flipped into a mirror image.
When he complained, the words “So who’s going to notice?” were actually used.
Also not voting for Bush - also think this is no big deal.
