While at political science graduate school in the early 90’s I spent some time studying facial “affect,” or how non-verbal, physical “cues” communicate with people. I ended up co-authoring an American Political Science Association conference paper on the 1994 Democratic gubernatorial primary in Illinois (which Dawn Clark Netsch won - and understandably, at least according to the way she came across (visually) on local news). So it was with some interest that I looked at the series of three pictures of Joseph Biden taken during the senate hearing on the John R. Bolton nomination for United Nations ambassador by Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times photographer Stephen Crowley (see his “Photographer’s Journal: Campaign Moments” here).
First thing to note is that the Biden pictures aren’t flattering.
Second thing I see is that if you wanted to make someone look crazy and angry - these three pictures would fit the bill.
While there are standards for photojournalism ethics, it is unclear to me whether they include chronological presentation when it is implied in the layout - or are legitimate if simply unaltered. There are good reasons for ethical policies - and for making them clearer and better known - as I look at the power of these Biden pictures. Perhaps they are representative of Joe Biden speaking at the hearings - perhaps not. Either way, we are entering a period of media use where more critical discussion of what we see should go more mainstream.
I am not one of Joe Biden’s biggest fans - but everyone deserves a fair shake. I know that Joe has been trying to raise his profile of late, and is hoping to connect with voters by engaging in folksy talk here (”[t]his is a big deal, guys and ladies”) and with his “old buddy” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the Gonzales nomination hearings. Perhaps he was grandstanding during the Bolton hearings. If these Stephen Crowley pictures are representative, and if Joe Biden wants to improve his image, he should remember when he’s taking a public stance that a picture is worth a thousand words.
Post a Comment