A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lies

On the cover they employed an image that I (and I’m not alone) took to be a blatant piece of editorializing through image manipulation.

Bush was blessed with a flattering, contemporary-looking professional photograph of him in full military regalia, while Kerry was depicted in a rank, brown-tinged news shot that made him look like a silly, sour — and civilian — relic of the distant disco age.

In an e-mail to the Romenesko journalists’ forum at Poynter I said that, in light of their respective services, the contrast was unfair and ludicrous.

USN&WR editor Brian Duffy responded.

Romenesko is an insider forum that journalists respect (and fear: Howard Raines’ fall at the Times was documented and probably accelerated by a stream of damaging leaks to Romenesko) and they respond to posts promptly and seriously.

So I decided not to poison the well with a lot of nitpicking, fingerpointing, and getting in the last word.

But here on my own site, it’s another story.

Duffy made the following points:

In other words:

Firstly the story is about 1971, when Kerry was out of uniform and George was in the Texas Air National Guard.

Secondly, they couldn’t find a better picture of Kerry.

As to the first point, Bush was depicted favorably in a military setting while Kerry is shown unflatteringly. It’s a smear, making one guy look good and the other look bad through the selective use of imagery. Unfair. That’s the main gripe.

Of course, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of the circumstances realizes, it’s also dishonest. It glorifies Bush’s part-time exploits in a stateside guard unit and implies that Kerry was a feckless (and mean-looking) civilian the same time George was proudly serving his country.

The distinction that we’re only talking about those 12 months of 1971, when Kerry was two years removed from his genuine swift boat heroics but GWB could still play dress-up in his military uniform, is lost on me.

No doubt it will also be lost on the millions of people who see good old George smiling out at them from newsstands in bus stations and supermarkets, while Kerry is scowling off to the side in his sissy civvies and bad hair.

As to 2, five minutes of agonizing heavy lifting via Yahoo! netted this picture of Kerry from that period. N.B. You’ll have to scroll way down to get to the pic.

And guess what: he’s sitting in his army fatigues with that damn fruit salad on his chest, not a cheesy suit and tie, testifying at a Congressional hearing, educating the nation on the pre-eminent moral and political crisis of the last 40 years: the Vietnam war. It’s a pretty cool picture. It would have looked good on the cover.

So let’s return to Mr. Duffy’s statement that:

In 1971, Bush’s service in the mighty TANG amounted to 12 glorious weekends “and a handful of weeknights” i.e. apprx. 30 days or 8% of the year. The rest of the time was spent as a management trainee in a Bush crony firm, fixated on sports and god knows what else.

In the article, friends from the period describe him as:

Therefore, an image more accurately reflecting Bush’s appearance and activities at that time would probably be of Bush in jeans and a T-shirt chugging a tall boy, or perhaps bent over a glass-covered coffee table packing his snout with Bolivian marching powder.

But sigh I guess USNWR’s hardworking photography department couldn’t come up with one of those pictures either.

Brian promises a note in the next issue will address readers’ “questions” about the cover.

But Brian, a little note in the next issue isn’t going to erase the misleading impression that the cover created in millions of minds — or excuse USNWR’s overt bias.

Sorry Brian.

Here’s the e-mails on Romonesko, plus a copy of a complaint e-mail I sent direct to USNWR. If you feel like piling on, too, you can contact USNWR at this link:

What’s the Story Behind USNWR Cover?
4/28/2004 8:48:04 AM

From PETER LEE: Subject — USN&WR Bush/Kerry cover. As a non-journo I would appreciate insight from the professionals as to how something like the USN&WR cover happens?

Just as Karen Hughes and Republican politicians are seeking to trivialize Kerry's service, wounds, and decorations and attack his sincerity and patriotism as an opponent of the Vietnam War, USNWR comes out with a cover split between a professional photograph of George Bush in uniform in 1971 gazing out at the reader with a proud, shy smile looking like Tom Cruise's older brother...and a dingily-tinted news candid of Kerry in civies with big hair and a crookedly knotted tie, gazing shiftily off to the side and scowling like a junior Mafioiso caught on a surveillance tape.

No question it's an enormous gift to Bush. People walking past newsstands will undoubtedly get the impression that Bush was a gung-ho red white and blue warrior, while Kerry...was skulking around America wearing polyester and sniffing hair spray.

It would be grotesquely unfair piece of editorializing even if the actual truth of their respective services didn't make it ludicrous.

Question 1: How does this happen? We guess that the owner calls the editor, the editor passes the word to the guy who designs the cover, and the cover is shamefacedly approved at the editorial meeting.

Question 2: More important: Why don't any journalists cover this stuff? Even in today's world of harried, overworked staff and tight budgets, you'd think that some enterprising newshound could walk across the room and get the inside skinny on how the deal was done on this cover — and get the story out.

It is the apparent unwillingness of journalists to cover themselves and their role in unremitting efforts of the White House not only to spin but to distort that incenses the blogosphere and allows apparent canards like the scripted news conference theory to gain so much traction.

Maybe putting your journalistic ethics on the shelf is what makes your jobs so hard and unpleasant.

What's the scoop, folks?

USN&WR Editor: “No Editorializing Was Intended”

4/28/2004 11:48:35 AM

From BRIAN DUFFY, editor, U.S. News & World Report: Thanks for posting the letter from Peter Lee about the current U.S. News cover and for giving me an opportunity to respond. A number of readers have raised questions about the cover, and I plan on writing a note in next week's issue to address them, but perhaps it would also be helpful to address Mr. Lee's questions here, as well.

The magazine's cover story, by writers Ken Walsh and Dan Gilgoff,
addresses a critical year in the lives of John Kerry and George W. Bush. The year is 1971, a time in which Mr. Kerry had completed his service in Vietnam and when Mr. Bush was in the midst of his service with the Texas Air National Guard. The story speaks for itself about the state of mind of the two men and their respective ambitions and aspirations.

The question Mr. Lee raises, however, has to do with the images of the two men we displayed on the magazine's cover. Despite extensive research by the magazine's Photography Department, we were able to find only a few images of either man from that period that we thought were appropriate for a cover. That being the case, we sought to portray both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush in the most respectful, and similar, postures possible. In. Mr. Kerry's case, we chose an image of him in a suit and tie. In Mr. Bush's case, we chose an image of him in his dress uniform. Both images reflected accurately the way the two men looked at that time.

Mr. Lee states that the juxtaposition of the photographs of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry would be a "grotesquely unfair piece of editorializing...if the actual truth of their respective services didn't make it ludicrous." But Mr. Kerry was not in the Navy in 1971. He was making media appearances on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Mr. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard. It was one chapter in both ther lives that our story focused on. We have written many stories about Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, and (Brian Duffy promises to send the rest of the letter.)

E-mail to USNWR:

The selection of photos for your Bush/Kerry cover was indefensible.

Bush is shown dressed in military uniform, professionally photographed with flattering lighting, smiling proudly and gazing directly out from the picture.

Kerry is shown in civilian clothes, with a crooked tie, in a dingily-tinted candid news photograph, apparently scowling and looking shiftily to the side.

This is not illustration — this is editorializing.

If the contrast between Kerry's decorated service and Bush's on-again off-again fling with stateside military service is known, the contrast is also contemptible — and laughable.

Perhaps your owners and editors feel that this piece of pandering to the Bush administration is a small price to play for continued access and favors.

But I think you will learn that you have merely advertised that USNWR's integrity is for sale — on the front cover of your own magazine.

Sincerely,
Peter Lee