Dennis Dunleavy

When a photo-op backfires

Presidential hopeful John McCain's photo-op in a grocery store got a little messy last week as a shelf of applesauce spilled onto the floor. What's interesting about this video showing McCain's visit is that even tightly managed media campaigns can sometimes turn out not as they were planned.

The objective of a photo-op is to convey a carefully constructed visual message about the campaign's strategy to the voters. The campaign has a prescribed image it wants the public to remember about the candidate. When something goes awry, the original message is replaced by a new and more unintended message. Howard Dean's campaign for president found this out the hard way. The media, in general, has become less about information these days and more about entertainment. When Dean howls on camera, or when John McCain's presence is overshadowed by applesauce, the reportage quickly moves from substantive content to a Saturday Night Live spoof. Presidential elections have increasingly become focused on controlling image and perception not on solving our nation's greatest problems. Honestly, people have so little patience for coming to terms with the big issues at stake thanks in large part to how media operates in this economy. But it's not all the media's fault here. In fact, a lot of this has to do with how culture evolves. Politics is all about image. Many times, it's not what is said, but how it is said.

Cartoonist hits funny bone and journalistic nerve

 

Ruben Bolling's "Tom the Dancing Bug" cartoon is funny on most days, but when he decided to spoof the use of Photoshop by an Iranian news agency he hit a nerve. Bolling leaves few pop culture stones unturned with visual making references to how Fox News saved journalism by using a photoshopped headshot of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The social impact of visual messages

Credit: WFTV

Some people will do just about anything to get attention. In a culture where "images" are the message, it's important to recognize how people use images to compete with other images. In other words, one of the more interesting sociological aspects of this visual culture is the idea of perceptual competition. For example, the juxtaposition of an image showing the burning World Trade Center of September 11th against an anti-democratic message serves as an example of the increasing perceptual competition in an society inundated with visual imagery.

In order to be effective, the message must trump all others in its proximity. Today this billboard is making news around the country because of its "shock" value, but will we remember it a month from now. Probably not. The message competes for and gains our attention perceptually and then we let it slip away as other messages come into our consciousness.

Visual messages do not operate by the same semantic properties as verbal messages. We read the image of the burning World Trade Center differently than we read the words "Please don't vote for a democrat." The reason for this is, according to Paul Messaris, "Verbal language is characterized by arbitrary, purely conventional relationships between individual elements (sounds or words) and their meanings, and it has a highly explicit and relatively inflexible syntax (i.e., set of rules governing the ordering of sounds, words, and phrases)."

For instance, the relationship between the words "please" and "don't vote" connotes the implicit demands of the speaker. Using "please" implies the convention of civility, etiquette and manners, while the accompanying words suggest a directive. When used together, however, the words combine to convey a sentiment which implores the viewer to take action. Juxtapose the verbal against the visual the message becomes even more complex. The signification of the message becomes more fluid and open to an array of interpretations. In fact, this is why the billboard has become controversial. Values and beliefs are challenged as by the communication and this where much of the ambiguity and controversy resides.

Understanding the relationship between signs, visually and verbally, is critical for understanding the deeper more complex political, social, economic, and cultural issues at stake here.

In a blink of an eye, the world stops

Photography is Zen like. It lives in the fleeting moments of our day-to-day existence. Yet, there is also a transcendent quality to the act of making a picture. There is somehow an expectation I hold toward the process that helps to make sense of the world -- to find beauty in it. There is also something extraordinary about the power of the camera to freeze, frame and fix time as it does. At 1/8,000th of a second, the world stops on a hot summer day.

What Bruno Chalifour says of photography is true:

"Sensitivity, knowledge, experience, and imagination are the tools that we were given to work within that frame and make most of the world within it, make sense, establish relationships, move and be moved, express ourselves."

For me, creating pictures is what  people do with their time while waiting to go to heaven. At least, that's one way to imagine heaven. To exist for all time through the impressions of the world we have created for ourselves. 

The death of parody: Obama and that New Yorker cover

Just hours after it's release, the most recent New Yorker magazine, due out Monday, has been denounced from both the Obama and McCain presidential campaign as offensive and tasteless.

The cover depicts Barack Obama, dressed in a turban and thobe, fist-pumping his wife in the Oval Office.  Michelle Obama, made up to look like a 1960s Black Panther, is carrying an assault weapon. In the background, a portrait of Osama Bin Laden hangs on the wall, as an American flag burns in the fireplace.

Using indignation and characterization, the cartoon is a preposterous exaggeration. Josh Greenberg (2002) notes "Political Cartoons operate as frames for the organization of social knowledge insofar as they make use of various rhetorical devices-- metaphors, catch phrases, depictions, etc.--that purport to capture the essence of an issue or event graphically." 

In our knee-jerk world of instant information and misinformation, thanks in large part to the Internet, we have become increasingly sensitive to political              
correctness. There is little tolerance today for representations deemed racially offensive -- of which the New Yorker cartoon is one. The problem is, as a commentator on the Dallas Morning News Web site points out, "The average American voter, especially the average Bush/McCain voter, is not smart enough to understand satire. They'll think the magazine is literally saying Obama and his wife are militant terrorists." Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post suggests, "The main problem with the New Yorker cover -- if it's a problem at all -- is that its humor is intended for a relatively insular, like-minded readership: subscribers to the New Yorker, a presumably urbane audience with strong Obama tendencies. No matter what the New Yorker says about holding up a mirror to prejudice, the cartoon certainly didn't do that. It was more like a spyglass."

 Political Correctness: The Shame Factor

The cartoon gets at an underlying truth. It points out how easy it has become to stereotype political candidates. In the cartoon, for example, there are nearly a dozen visual metaphors at play: turban, afro, combat boots, thobe, sandals, burning flag, terrorist portrait, fist pump, thick lips, oval office, and assault weapon.  The cartoon acts a cognitive map pointing out how ridiculous the bombast has become toward  Obama in recent months, especially from Fox News. The visual metaphors serve to play upon the viewer's fears. In fact, the artist, Barry Blitt defended the cover arguing, "I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous," he wrote. "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

Syd Hoff, in his introduction to Editorial and Political Cartooning (1977) observes that it takes courage to be a cartoonist. "Courage is needed because there are always some readers who will be offended by the point of view of an editorial cartoon and will demand the job and maybe the hide of the artist."

If Blitt's cartoon doesn't re-energize the debate over political correctness in this country, it is hard to say what will. Terms like "offensive" and "tasteless", used by both Obama and McCain, intimate political correctness because that's what people expect them to say. It hurts to be reminded how well we have allowed politics to degenerate into an unremitting torrent of blatant stereotypes and sound bites. We react negatively to such a cartoon, because we no longer understand the visual metaphors at play here. Everything must be taken literally, because that's that way we can always hold the moral high ground. The initial reaction to the cartoon suggests that America is losing its capacity to detect sarcasm and no longer values parody unless it's done on Saturday Night Live or by John Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Columnist Joel Achenbach missed the humor of the cartoon. "The natural response is to cringe rather than laugh. Of course, political cartooning by nature deals with caricatures and heavy-handed images, but usually they're leavened by some kind of quip, some verbal wink. In this case there's no punch line."

We cannot find it within ourselves to examine our own cultural biases enough to understand that Blitt's cartoon has a long history in American political humor. As a form of parody and humorous exaggeration, the cartoon is intended to push some buttons. We are supposed to look at it and see the attacks on Obama what they are -- mean-spirited and fear-raising. 

As one commenter on the CBC Web site contends, "It's not the New Yorker's fault that people are too stupid to understand that the cartoon is mocking the right-wing hate machine and not insulting Obama. I laughed out loud (at work no less!) when I saw the cover. How can anyone take that seriously."

Credit: Barry Blitt, The New Yorker

Credit: Chicago Tribune/WGN

Technorati Profile

The art of deception: Pictures can lie, but people lie a lot more

Photo Credits: (missiles) Sepah News photo via Agence France-Presse/NY Times, (Powell)  The Associated Press

Lying is a moral choice people make. Individuals lie. Governments lie -- some lie more than others. The truth is, lying is a fact of life.

Ethicist Sissela Bok puts it this way, "Deception and violence -- these are the two forms of deliberate assault on human beings" (Lying: Moral choice in public and private life, 1978, New York: Vintage, p. 19).

In this age of photo ops and digital photographic manipulation, the "deliberate assault" on human beings appears unremitting. Deception leads to violence against humanity. In fact, when was the last time a lie got us out of a war? This article compares two forms of deception used by individuals and government to shape public opinion – the digitally altered image and the photo op.  

Who can forget one of the first major digital deceptions -- the 1992 OJ Simpson mug shot on the cover of Time magazine?

Despite the uproar caused by the darkening of Simpson's skin, the manipulation appeared an anomaly -- a fluke produced by an artist who decided to take creative license with a mug shot.

In a 2006 survey I conducted to help clarify what professionals consider to photo manipulation, I used three different definitions and asked respondents to agree or disagree.

When questioned, “I define photo digital manipulation as changes to the content of a picture after it is made through electronic means,” nearly 90 percent of respondents agree with the statement. 

In a similar way, when asked, “I define photo digital manipulation as a process that changes the content of a picture by adding or removing visual elements from the original,” again, the majority agrees with the definition.

However when asked, “I define photo digital manipulation as a process that helps to make the picture better aesthetically,” responses greatly varied.

In this case, 10 percent strongly agree, while 27 percent agree. The remaining 62 percent remain either neutral on the definition or disagree with the statement. As one respondent suggests, “This is a small part of photo digital manipulation, not necessarily THE definition. I would guess this is where the amateur checks in--cleaning up redeye or other little messy details that are easily fixed in this digital world.”

At the same time, when presented the definition, “I define photo digital manipulation as a process that helps to make the objects in the picture more visually interesting,” a majority affirmed the statement.

This raises an issue of semantics, since making “the picture better aesthetically” and making “the picture more visually interesting” seem, at least to me, fairly closely related. In fact, one participant asks, “Can we define the difference 'manipulation' vs. 'image enhancement/post-processing' (tone, color, contrast, brightness, etc.).

Perhaps this is where the line begins to be drawn for many people. For decades, post-production processes have accepted the enhancement through dodging and burning, yet today event long-standing antecedent practices appear to be under the magnifying glass.

Recently, major news outlets around the world, including The New York Times, The Los Angles Times, and the Chicago Tribune, used a photograph of an Iranian missile launch. The photograph turned out to be digitally altered. Headlines accompanying the picture showing four long-range missiles coming off pads were written, true to form, to both seduce as well as edify readers.

The logic here is that if big media buys into a lie, then the public will follow. Not so, thanks to an intrepid army of bombastic bloggers ready to pounce on the slightest journalistic misstep, the truth was revealed. The Iranian government's official news agency manipulated the image. Stop the presses. Why should surprise anyone that Iran would use deception in its current high stakes game of threats against the West?

Pictures, after all, have been used to provoke conflicts for a very long time. In 1897, media baron William Randolph Hearst allegedly told his artist in Cuba, Frederick Remington, who was apparently bored with his assignment for lack of action, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." Even though Hearst disputed the quote, there is something prescient in the statement. History tells us that Hearst made a moral choice to provoke a conflict with Spain. After the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine, Hearst's newspaper and others fabricated stories about Spanish atrocities against civilians in Cuba and Puerto to force intervention. Hearst's moral choice to lie was motivated mostly by blind ambition. Hearst needed to build up his media empire. What better way to build a news business than by inventing a war?  However, Iran's motivation to manipulate images of its defense system is purely rhetorical -- a way of flipping off the United States after all the chest thumping it has been getting from the White House. The picture is a rhetorical act because it traffics in persuasion and ideology. Lying is a mind game. In game theory, credibility and veracity are cornerstones of influencing an opponent's choices. Bloggers, anxious to make a little news of their own, called Iran's digital bluff, but the game is far from over. In fronting Iran's play, bloggers may have actually escalated tensions between the countries and forced us closer to war.

Different kinds of Deception

While digital photo manipulation is an explicit lie, there are other forms of deception that are far more insidious.

These lies, as illustrated in the photo op pictured above, are more ambiguous and at times even more deceitful.  When former Secretary of State Colin Powell held up a vial containing a model of anthrax during it was to convince the world that Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction presented a clear and present danger. The vial was a prop used to signify peril and that if the U.S. failed to rid the world of Hussein we could only imagine the worse possible scenario. Powell's visual cues were supported by statements such as "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" and "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Although the U.N. Security Council didn't buy Powell's rhetoric, the U.S. press did.  Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan notes the White House press corps were "complicit enablers" in the buildup to the war in Iraq. Much of the media at the time were eager to have "good" visuals to accompany White House rhetoric and Powell's waving of the pseudo biological weapon worked like a charm. The picture appeared on the pages of most U.S. newspapers and magazines and helped to sell the war to the American public.

While Iran's digital altered missile image was an explicit lie, Powell's pretentious viral rattling theatrics, however, was a more insidious form of deception. The moral choices made at this level are more ambiguous and implicit. Moreover, it is harder to detect the lies when they are presented as "official" news. When political strategists try to spin messages they rely heavily on educated guesses about what they can get away with selling to the American public.

The press often appear to unabashedly play by the rules of the game, and the political image-makers own the rule book. Therefore, much of what we see has been managed to provide predictable responses. Powell's visit to the U.N. was a pseudo-event far more interested in winning hearts and minds than it was about telling the truth.

Staged pseudo-events are part of our political culture and rarely called into question by the public. But there also appears to be greater tolerance for verbal shock and awe over pseudo-events that use physically altered images. Robert Warren explains Daniel Boorstin's theory of the pseudo-event as "a manufactured happening that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy through media exposure."

Stirring up public fear through the influence of government propaganda as played out in the press, be it by Iran or the U.S., continues to deliberately assault human beings around the world through deceit and violence.

Despite overly self-absorbed and obsessed with smoking guns theory bloggers are acting as change agents in this country. Bloggers challenge journalists to live up their implicit promise to “afflict the powerful and comfort the afflicted.” Moreover, bloggers are setting the tone for more engaged and visually sophisticated audiences. Bloggers are now beginning to speak truth to power by calling into question the deceptive practices committed by institutions of authority in this country.

A tableau vivant on wheels

Most of the pictures are tiny -- a little bigger than thumb nail size. Aesthetically, the images
are no great shakes, but what makes them extraordinary is that they are plastered all
over a Volkswagen for all the world to see -- think Flickr on wheels. Flickr is a Web
site where people can share personal images such as pictures of parties, relatives,
people doing this or that.

Now it seems people want to take the personal images they make on the road, literally.

Here's a car that's been laminated into a personal rolling snapshot -- a moving one-of-a-kind scrapbook.
Of course, there's got to be more of a back story here. Nevertheless, I sort of like the idea of
having a pop culture tableau vivant flying along the highway. Imagine getting pulled over
by the police for overexposure (pardon the pun).

One of the more interesting effects of the Web 2.0 culture is the diminution of the line between public and private. Attention seeking behavior is all around us. Everything is getting more personal online and off. If we can air our dirty laundry on a blog or social networking site, why not celebrate ourselves by splattering our cars with snapshots. What is this type of display all about? At first glance, one might think that anyone who would display their personal lives must be be arrogant and over confident. It may be that the individual suffers from such low self-esteem that they force themselves to be the center of attention. As it turns out, the car is actually a promotion for Baker Design & Vinyl Graphics.

A photographic renaissance: digital photography and creativity

This week I took my family to the ballet in the park and made
pictures that I felt transcend the experience of the performance.
What makes photography so unique is its ability to transcend
moments in time and space. There is an ethereal quality to
ballet that challenges the photographer to think beyond the
literal movement of performance and dance.

To work with the qualities of light, shape and form, it is necessary
to take a few risks in the process. To be moved by what we see so
that we can interpret these feelings for others is key to capturing
something more than just a visual record. To be honest, I find
myself less interested in making pictures of record. There is nothing
wrong with this approach, but every situation speaks to me differently.
What is important to me in a photograph is to catch the little surprises
that I may have missed as the event drifted by me. For example, one
surprise of watching the ballet was simply in the ability to translate
the transitory beauty of dance into something more tangible, yet
somewhat surreal. I think now I can understand what poets must see
in the world when pen is put to paper.

I think one of the issues that makes photography appear so trivial
these days is that much of the mystery has gone out of it. What I mean
here is that back in the day when a photographer took chances and
experimented with techniques such as soft focus or motion, they
literally took a chance. They would pack up the gear and hope
that something interesting came out. Second chances were far and few
between. Today, with digital photography there is absolutely no reason
why a photographer shouldn't take every creative opportunity possible
in using their imagination to the fullest potential. Sure, there are a lot
more people with high quality digital cameras making pictures, but it
doesn't mean they are using the device to its capacity. Experimentation
is the essence of digital photography today. It is for this reason that I
have become excited about what I think is a photographic renaissance.
Making pictures and seeing them immediately invites the photographer
to take chances and to dream. What makes this time so interesting for
photography is that we now hold in our hands the technology to come
as close to perfecting our individual vision of the world then any other time.

Fox News: The return of yellow journalism and photoshop

It is easy to dismiss Fox News as pretentious and partisan, but many people cannot see through the choices the news organization makes to shape public opinion.

In the video, the photographs of Steinberg and Reddicliffe appear manipulated. The faces are darker and the teeth seem to be yellow. Media Matters offers an detailed explanation of the altered images.

What we must consider here is how news organizations can use their significant power to advance ideological agendas. Through "cheap shot journalism" Fox may be denouncing its detractors, but it also promulgating a use of technology that imperils journalistic standards and deceives its viewers. The only rationale that comes to mind here is that Fox appears to believe that it stands above all others and that the ethical and professional codes of conduct put into place by the industry do not apply to them. If there is anything more detrimental to journalistic integrity it is arrogance. The hubris in which Fox appears to be conducting business, through the use of photo manipulation, suggests that it is pushing the boundaries of  journalistic practice to a new low.

Does the public really care if Fox manipulates photographs to humiliate and degrade individuals it does not like? Does the public know the difference between fiction and fact? Should anyone be held accountable?

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, it is clear that Fox News is playing in its own sandbox these days, and, anyone who disagrees might end up with yellow teeth.