Choosing an Ugly Photo of Trump

It's easy to choose an ugly photo of anyone.

Anyone who is videotaped can be made to look great.  Or silly.  Or petulant.  Or drunk. Or sleepy.  Or angry.    Whatever the editor wants, he or she gets.

If the news editor freezes the frame right in the "P" part of "GOP" a person looks like they are exploding with anger.  That photo can illustrate an article: Enraged Trump!   In mid-blink a candidate looks sleepy or bored or drunk.  In a mid-gesture of calling on a questioner the candidate looks like he is throwing a punch.

So the photo used to show illustrate a story is not a matter of photographing and presenting "simple honest reality."   There is no one reality because there were dozens of moods implied even within the voicing of a single word and certainly a single sentence.   

Donald Trump saying "GOP", when freeze framed, goes through the apparent motions of silly in the G to open-mouthed wonder  in the O, to barely contained anger in the always-dangerous P, into a neutral everyday face of a candidate as he moves into the "ee" sound of GOP.   Say "cheese".

Fox News side by side photo choice

Photo choice is a matter of absolute editorial intention and decision-making. 
  

Washington Post photo choice, in mid grimace.

Here is Fox New's opening freeze-frame of their pundit and Trump.   Krauthammer is in neutral face.  Trump is caught open mouthed, then displayed in that pose which is then placed next to Krauthammer's.   Krauthammer looks OK,  Trump looks silly.   (Don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, or with a TV network.)    Fox helped create Trump, giving him enormous amounts of time in phoned-in interviews, but now Fox is concerned about their creation, so they are flexing their power.  Somehow--incredibly-- they have made Krauthammer better looking than Trump, which takes craft and intention.

The Washington Post has given up all efforts to be neutral on Trump.  The photo to the right is their choice for illustrating Trump's speeches coincident with his Wall Street Journal op-ed where Trump, in measured tones, made the argument that the current delegate-selection system is corrupt.   His eyes are nearly shut, mouth poised in mid-consanant.   Is it a "t"?  He appears to be in a grimace, looking pained, mouth weird.  The Washington Post drew this photo from a videotaped speech and they had tens of thousands of potential freeze-frames.   They chose this one.

Google link to the Washington Post

To the left is the screen shot for the Google search that brings a reader to that story.  The photos catch Trump shot from below, mouth open, eyes closed.

Is Trump treated better in conservative website?   No.   He is treated worse, as they have their own agenda: affirming their own version of Republican orthodoxy, which excludes Trump apostasy.  Trump is dividing the GOP coalition and challenging traditional policies on trickle down, on immigration, on internationalism, on trade.   Trump is the enemy.  From their point of view it is a hostile takeover of the GOP by Trump, made worse because it is obvious that a great man voters agree with Trump, not them.  Their photo choices make their hostility evident.

National Review story

Neanderthal Trump

National Review devoted a whole issue to stopping Trump.  They made no pretense of objectivity and it shows in their choice both of stories and photos to illustrate them.    National Review has multiple articles and cartoons mocking Trump.  There is no pretense there: they want to stop Trump.

Here Trump is in a photo to the right.  Snarky headline "Trump Family Values", Trump with a smug grin.  They include a harshly lit photo of his first wife, Ivanna.  

The Weekly Standard is a well known vehicle for Neo-Conservative thought.   (Neo-Conservative policy tends toward a strong national security with an interventionist military that engages on behalf of American values around the world, plus a libertarian small government as regards regulation of business.  They think trickle down works, or would, if we could just cut taxes enough.  They are unabashedly pro-Israel.  They want to keep the Republican Party the reliable vehicle for their policies.)  Their coverage of current stories, taken from current websites show their stance.  Chris Deaton's story in the Weekly Standard is illustrated this way:

RedState.com is a large, popular website representing the establishment Republican point of view with multiple stories filed each day reflecting cheerleading website for GOP points of view.  RedState has multiple stories, each illustrated with Trump in the middle of something 

RedState.com photo choice

unlovely.   RedState's current stories are headlined "Donald Trump in a Snit because Wyoming will not Recognize his Awesomeness," and "Sore Trump Losers Protest Colorado Delegate Vote."   They are an opinion website and they dislike Trump, and their photo choices confirm it.  Ugly face.

TheHill.com is a website that complements the paper version of a newspaper that is distributed on Capital Hill and is widely read by legislators and the community of lobbyists, K-Street people, and people whose business relates to DC politics or policy.   It is positioned to the right of Politico.com with which it competes head-to-head.   The consensus view is that Politico is sort of liberal Democratic and The Hill is sort of conservative Republican although both news outlets work to seem balanced and non-partisan.   

Below is a photo choice of a TheHill.com story involving both Cruz and Trump.   Cruz's photo is neutral, Trump's is less so, but not exactly unflattering although his mouth is open and oddly in an "oo".   The photos are not equal, but it reflects a desire to look like a news outlet rather than an opinion outlet.   Still, there were a million photos they could have chosen for Cruz and they used one that was neutral.  And a million for Trump and they used one with his mouth in a kiss-face.

TheHill.com photo choices

Meanwhile TheHill's competitor to the left, Politico, is distributed side by side with TheHill on Capital Hill and is unabashed in its photo choice.   Politico chooses a photo of Trump appearing to be in finger pointed, mouth open, angry, even enraged.

Politico Photo Suggests Dangerous Rage

Voters have had ample opportunity to see Donald Trump on their own.  They have a sense of his personality and intentions when they see Trump at length unfiltered and un-curated.   But people reading news articles cannot help getting impressions.  Voters are deciding now whether Trump is appropriately angry or is he dangerously angry.  Is he a reasonable fighter for people like themselves or is he a little crazy and unreliable?   The cable news shows are describing, right now as I type, the question on whether Trump is "presidential enough".   The impressions that voters get on this issue are defined in part by what impressions they have of Trump drawn from whether the photo shows Trump in the middle of a petulant explosive "puh" or a neutral "ee, two parts of the same letter "P" .   One photo makes him look firm, the other makes him look crazy.  Out of a multitude of possible photos Politico chose this photo above.

Photo choice is not made by the candidate, who cannot help but blink his eyes and shape his lips to form words.  It is made by the photo editor.  (Including me, writing this post.)

Is it possible to show a neutral photo??     Yes.   A neutral photo returns to voters the decision of how to interpret Trump's behavior.   The New York Daily News tabloid used today a photo to illustrate a story. It is not particularly flattering but nor is it catching him in mid blink or skewed up lips.   I consider this photo to be a reasonable, nonjudgmental photo choice.  Neutral.

Daily News:  a neutral photo

[If you enjoy this blog post please bookmark: www.peterwsage.blogspot.com     Check out the blog daily or follow me by email to read my observations about the Election and the Administration that follows.]