I'm sure that this photograph...
accurately represents how Dowd looked for a split second or so (it's not like I think they rock the Photoshop like me -- or the NYT), but I'm certain that the photo was one out of many which were taken that they had to choose from.
So why pick the one that makes him look like he was screaming at the top of his lungs (or made me feel like I was a doctor holding a tongue depressor)?
If I was a voter who wasn't paying much attention to the mayoral race up until this point and I saw this picture it might sway me against Dowd or at the very least not make me want to find out more about him.
And, it's a shame because the issue is real:
The back-and-forth started with Mr. Dowd standing across the street from the Grant Street Transportation Center, with its unfinished Lamar Advertising electronic billboard. His campaign staff brought a cardboard check for $101,000 -- the approximate amount of post-resignation payments and benefits that former Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Pat Ford is getting as part of an agreement that bars him and city officials from disparaging each other.This isn't the first time that the P-G has used what had to have been the least flattering picture taken to illustrate an article. Remember this one which made the very tall Dowd look like a dwarf?
"That's hush money!" Mr. Dowd shouted, as his neck reddened and passers-by stopped to listen. "That's a sign of corruption. That's unacceptable in this city."
That arrangement stemmed from winter 2008 revelations that the city -- with guidance from Mr. Ford -- let Lamar have a permit and a no-bid contract to put a 19-by-58-foot sign on the center. When Mr. Ford confirmed that he'd received Christmas gifts from a Lamar executive, a State Ethics Commission review ensued, Mr. Ford accused the administration of a "culture of deception and corruption," and the two sides reached the settlement that Mr. Dowd brandished yesterday
Granted that Dowd was animated -- even passionate -- when speaking about the billboard issue, but judge for yourself if the first photograph above really represents the press conference he held:
(h/t to The Pittsburgh Comet for the video.)
.
8 comments:
I don't entirely disagree, but let's face it, Dowd's press conference was a staged event meant to only further his personal ambitions. I'm not saying he's wrong or that Luke isn't a putz, but EVERY press conference by a candidate is generally nothing more than a faux event, intended to get them free media and face time.
So, when some photo editor decides to use the less-than-perfect image, are they editorializing, or just interjecting a bit of harsh reality into the mostly staged-managed election "process."
And personally, I could use a dose of fiery, impassioned rhetoric!
Though yes, we're all still trying to get our heads around the dwarf photo...?
Clyde
Just to be clear, I don't think that the media is obligated to using the most flattering pic -- they aren't and should not be a candidate's press agent. But, I look at these pictures and have to say WTF?
me too maria.
Maria -
Taking a closer, longer look, yea, you're right :-)
But I'll add this. I'm guessing that the current state of newspaper economics is creating pressure for them to be as salacious and outrageous as possible, and that certainly relates to the photo editors. I can just hear management saying, "Don't you have something, you know, more edgy?????"
Personally, I'd love to have a crazed dwarf as Mayor. It would be like taking huge step toward normalcy...
Clyde
I have to take issue with most of Clyde's sentiments, which I admit are the shared jaded sentiments of most of the mainstream media.
When a candidate stages an event to further his or her political ambition -- that is real news. Because although ambition might be a good part of the motivation, he or she is engaged in a real activity that impacts the public.
So why the obvious resentment of politicians campaigning? It's what they're supposed to do. It's what we ask them to do. It's what they have an OBLIGATION to do. It's news in and of itself.
On the national level, journalists would pounce on accusations like these being made and pour it excruciatingly for at least a week. In Pittsburgh, we yawn and seem annoyed, and surely will not analyze his allegations either positively or negatively. The whole attitude of cynical apathy is no damn good for democracy.
Bram -
Jaded? Yup. To my mind, I rather the media stay that way, 'cause I fear the opposite, which is a fluffy, happy, get-along group of wimps. You know, like most of the local TV station himbos and bimbos...
As to whether this is news or not and should be obsessively covered?
Well, first off, where do you draw the line? If Dowd had a press conference every other day, should the papers dutifully show up and file stories? How do you differentiate "real" events from the sorts of Astroturf marketing BS that happens all the time? Be real. Politicians and their consultants are very adept at taking a simple issue and making it appear to be more than it is -- and using the media as their bull horn.
But more to the point, this WAS a story the first time out. It was covered in great detail.
Bottom line? I'm not against politicians reinserting such events into the public discourse. It deserves to be there. But the dance between the media and politicians always deserves scrutiny, too.
As someone who has worked as a photographer in this town for more than 10 years I have to admit - most photogs look for very expressive moments (as all of us should be).
We try to capture unique shots and that is often very difficult in situations like political rallies or other visually boring assignments.
That being said it is ultimately the editors job to ensure that the shots that are published are unique, interesting, and thought provoking. Just as important they also must represent truth and should not present the subject (either a person or event) in a manor that is inconsistent with the story being published or the publics view of the person.
If it's someone the public thinks is crazy or evil light them from below and take a photo of them cross eyed with their tongue hanging out - the consumers will eat it up and nobody will complain.
I don't think Patrick is viewed, by either the public at large, or the PG, as a crazed dwarf but I think it's conceivable that they had little else that was interesting to print from these situations and the public at large does demand interesting. I do think it is a shame that he looks more than anything like someone with a mental disability in the first shot.
As for the comments about the newsworthiness of the events, if it were not an election year, if something else more important had happened, or if he had a rally every other day they probably would not spend their limited resources covering it. The truth is newsworthiness is not measured in a vacuum but in the context of what else is happening.
I'll add one last thing for you all to chew on. There was a time about 20 years ago that the politicians blew off the photojournalism students in this town. When those students started working they began taking great pictures of politicians doing bad stuff, yawning and picking their noses at council meetings, stuff like that. The politicians learned rather quickly to be friend everyone. Could this be a similar situation? I don't know the answer.
WDOPhotography,
Thanks for the view from a professional. :-)
I also do know from my somewhat limited limited experience as an amateur photographer who takes photos of speakers at rallies that there are some people who just don't photograph well when they're speaking. I end up with a lot of shots of the person looking awkward or at least more unattractive than my impression of them from just watching them. (I'm sure I'm also hampered with an older, slower digital camera.)
But, just looking at the freeze from the video, I'm convinced that a real photographer with a good camera could have captured a photo that was dynamic and compelling and full of energy without the crazy-around-the-edges one that the P-G used.
The 'dwarf' photo really does mystify me. It seems so damn editorial -- as if they wanted to present Dowd as being small and alone which I don't think matched the story at all. It's just so terribly distorted. I mean, look at this photo from a debate between the three candidates and you see that in reality Dowd towers over his competition physically.
These pictures just bug the hell out of me -- as a professional designer and someone who has been a PR/corporate communications director -- because I can imagine people who maybe skim the story or just look at the picture and the headline and are left with a misleading, negative impression.
Post a Comment