February 19, 2007

Onward Christian Soldiers

The Jawa Report notes the canonization of "Saint Harry" today (h/t Hot Air) and provides examples of other, less flattering photo compositions of conservatives that made it on the front pages of media sites over the past few years.

With that as a guide, I must wonder: does this count as another example of biased photo composition?


The blurred object in the background bears a resemblence to the Maltese Cross carried into battle by Christian warriors since the first Crusade.


Now, the media would never use a creative photo angle or strategic photo composition imply that Vice President Cheney is carrying on a crusade against Islam, would it?

Heavens, no.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at February 19, 2007 01:09 PM

Well, buddy, now you're just being crazy.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 19, 2007 01:53 PM

Would that be his crusade against the Chinese Islamofascists or the North Korean variety? I only ask because this is the text that accompanies the picture:

US Vice President Dick Cheney gives a speech in Washington, DC, on 14 February. Cheney was heading to Japan and Australia, where he will discuss their roles in Iraq and Afghanistan and common challenges like China's rise and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Anyway, Bush himself declared the GWOT to be a "crusade." We're not backing away from that now, are we? If we do, the terrorists win. Surge the course!

Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 19, 2007 02:01 PM

Well, buddy, now you're just being crazy.

So you see no pattern here:

Posted by: lb at February 19, 2007 02:27 PM

If anything, the image in the Cheney picture counts as more of a golden shine than anything else--who the hell would think about a Maltese cross, anyway, except for someone looking to read something sinister into everything they see? As a matter of fact, it is more likely conservative bias: the shot is clearly set up to portray golden goodness coming out of his mouth.

Sure, photojournalists compose shots for maximum effectiveness; many may compose their shots to send a message. That doesn't mean that all photos mean something evil.

If politicians know that they're going to be photographed, why stand in front of a sign that says "rat?" Or "retire?"

In re: Rove: Wasn't there a spate of stories recently speculating about his leaving his current job? In that context, framing the shot with an "EXIT" sign would be just an extension of the storyline--an illustration of what the story is about.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 19, 2007 03:00 PM

"conservative bias?" Give me some of whatever you've been smoking please, Doc. On the other hand, sometimes a blurred background image is just a blurred background image--and I think it would be giving our journofacist friends too much credit to assume they would even recognize any association between a Maltese cross and the crusades. After all, for them, history started when the US got involved in Vietnam.

Posted by: Poopstain at February 19, 2007 08:59 PM

I get all teary-eyed when I see conservatives learning -- and practicing! -- these new-fangled post-modernist concepts like "media literacy" in which you search for the implicit bias in the framing of a picture.

I thought I would only be able to talk with a bunch of marxist-feminist college professors about this kind of stuff, but here are dyed-in-the-wool reactionaries willing to do the same. I'm looking forward to when we can have a Wednesday night discussion of Foucault!

Posted by: Pennypacker at February 19, 2007 11:52 PM

Pennypacker: What the Fouc you talkin' ault?

Posted by: TheManTheMyth at February 20, 2007 10:00 AM

Pennypacker: What the Fouc you talkin' ault

Okay, that's pretty funny.

Posted by: Pennypacker at February 21, 2007 12:21 AM