A Comment on The Media and Photography

In 2008 all hell is going to break loose in the US: I will graduate from college, but of admittedly more importance, the American people will decide who shall lead this country for the proceeding four years. Hillary, the first women, Obama, the first non-white, Edwards, maybe Clark and Sharpton, prove to make things interesting, and that's just democratic side of the equation.

Political pundits are already predicting this to be the most expensive election of all time, topping the $1.01 billion spent on campaigning in 2004. Media, especially newspapers have faced declining ad revenue in recent years, but it appears the future cash cow of advertising revenue may exist in political boxing ring of presidential elections.

With the excessive advertising and fundraising that is demanded of a presidential bid, there is no doubt in my mind that the American people will be exposed to a barrage of negative ads and pointed attacks between the candidates.

While a photograph represents an actual event, it is not free of opinion or point of view. I think it is for this reason that the New York Times chooses almost exclusively to use a wide angle shot that captures a broad scene and not an individual person or object, for its front page image. In this way the viewer is able to decipher meaning from the larger image.

The fact that photography can be used to guide people to one message that may or may not be the truth is very relevant to political ad campaigns. Two photographs taken of Hillary Clinton at a speaking event, from the same angle, or even the same camera, can portray her in very different ways, conveying messages that even contradict one another.

Allow me to demonstrate. I photographed the "Drugs in a Free Society: Prohibition or Legalization?" debate at USF this past Tuesday. The event is one of many in a series titled Cicero's Podium, featuring distinguished scholars on different sides of a variety of topics. For this event, Ethan A. Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance presented a case for the legalization of drugs, and specifically for "alternatives to the war on drugs." I captured the following two images of Nadelmann, they are similar yet how they portray him is starkly contrasted.

Here, Nadelmann looks to be making a compassionate point. He seems caring, trustworthy, a "good guy."

Here he looks vicious, malicious, like someone you want to avoid in a dark alley.

It's easy to make a photograph bend to your whims, I wasn't even trying here, and I'm not talking about Photoshop, which makes a whole new realm of distorted truth possible. These two shots are taken within seconds of each other from the same spot where I sat on the floor in the front of the room, and tell the same story: man talking at podium. Yet the message and mood of these shots couldn't be further apart.

As campaign season heats up earlier than usual this election cycle, I expect to see a lot of this kind of advertising, distorted and loaded with spin. I vow to let me decisions be based on fact and issue, not songs, slogans, banners, photographs, and manipulated truth. Unfortunately, I feel that dramatic 30 second TV ads are what most impact the average American voter's election decision.