I was replying to a post made by Terr, who asserted it was the journalist’s responsibility to be tracking down illustrations for the story they were writing, rather than providing comment on what an editor might be thinking when deciding which of the acquired images to use, FWIW.
ISTR that when Tad Kaczynski was first arrested, the first pictures of him that ran on the news were his college yearbook photos from the '60s.
Pedant.
Sorry for the hijack, but I’m quoting to keep this awesome name preserved for posterity!
Hahaha, yes, or that 
A 16 year old black guy was killed by a white cop in my neck of the woods (Bergen County NJ). The local paper ran the story with a photo of an angelic looking 12 year old black child. When asked why they didn’t use a more recent photo, they said “We coldn’t find one.”
Turns out the “child” had an arrest record, so someone wrote in and asked “Why didn’t you use his mug shot?”
Actually, Crafter_Man’s comment is a perfectly valid GQ. I’ve worked in the business (including being editor-in-chief of a monthly alternative newspaper for three years), and I can tell you that editors DO choose pictures to help tell the story.
If you’re writing a story about how horrible it is that some dude shot a deer without a license, and you have a choice between a picture of the guy in camo carrying a .30-30, or a picture of the same dude in a suit and tie at an art gallery opening, you’re going to use the photo with the gun. It fits the story.
I like to think that most “real” journalists (excluding the tabloids here) avoid the obvious bias, but you can tell a lot about a publication by what photo they run of a rape victim…
Note that even now with other photographs available, the press still runs the angelic 12-year old Trayvon against 60-lb-heavier-than-today mug shot of Zimmerman:
or, if that’s too “tabloidy”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017887566_trayvonmartinfacts02.html
[moderator note]
Political potshots are not allowed in this forum. Stop doing this, Dufus.
[/moderator note]
ISTM there is a major difference between the potentially very limited choice that media have immediately after a story breaks concerning some (previously) unknown person, and the choice the media have about, say, a politician.
Politicians are photographed continually and editors can, by using photographs of someone talking or otherwise showing emotion or expression, pick anything they like. I’ve certainly seen plenty of examples of very normal looking politicians, shown on TV as having normal expressions and mannerisms, for which papers regularly use photos taken showing them looking like they are snarling if it suits the story or the editorial line.
I hesitate to change the subject so I’ll just ask if there is a thread about NBC’s biased editing referred to above.
Didn’t see one. Just post here about it.
Yeah…without appearing to get all my information from comic books, I assume there’s a J. Jonah Jameson somewhere barking “Run the scary photo with story A, the sexy photo with story B, and all the photos for story C are crap! Get Parker in here!”
Nahhh… not worth the effort. Surely there is one by now:D