Sunday, October 12, 2008
Bias, photography, and double standards
Newsweek magazine has published a photograph of Sarah Palin on its cover without the benefits of Photoshop, which is abundantly used by the same magazine to make B'rak Hussein Obama look "presidentiable".
Not happy with creating an object of cult -of cult of personality, that is- with B'rak Hussein Obama and his Messianic poses, halos, pensive gestures, and so on, Newsweek and other media have successfully hidden wrinkles, hair plugs, moles and other imperfections in a guy who is hardly an Adonis, Joe Biden.
We better not touch the McCain photo sessions and the photographs that get published of the Republican candidate. The media is a veritable factory of ridiculous images of the Republican camp, resorting to fisheye lenses, cartoonish poses, and unflattering lighting or closeups.
Besides the deconstruction of the looks of a beautiful woman in her forties, by a close-close-close-up, in what resembles the kind of macrophotography used to study insects, the photos at the top appear in the online edition of Newsweek just to visually assassinate Sarah Palin. One wonders how low the press has fallen that a woman gets vilified like this for her looks. It would be interesting to see what would happen if equally "revealing" photos of Michel Obama were to be published in a magazine with nation-wide editions.
Do not miss the caption of the cover photograph: "she's one of the folks", and the tag line "and that's the problem". There's something to be said about the arrogance, the elitism, and the complex of superiority of the "illuminati" who write the contents of these magazines. They seem not to have a problem if some in-and-out of rehab "star" with more botox than the mummy of Lenin expresses his/her (political) "opinions", as long as the person in question is an Obamaniac.
As we have seen, the Obama camp has erased all traces of gentlemanship in this presidential contest. They are treating this election as if it were a trashy reality TV show, and using tactics that high-schoolers would consider low. There's, though, an explanation for that: they are lower than high school bullies.
Posted by Charlie Bravo at 11:06 PM