Wing Nut Crybaby Moment of the Week, Cont.

Ok. Sides are being taken in the Michele Bachmann Crazy Picture story. First, my biases. I can't stand her, and what she believes in, and have nothing but the lowest opinion of her as a human being. So I really don't give a shit if Newsweek went the extra mile to make her look bad. Goes with the territory. There's No Crying in Baseball. If you choose to get on the Gaming Grid, you accept the risk of harm. Get over it.

Now I was sorta surprised that NOW came down on Newsweek, and particularly believe their reasoning was bullshit. It was not so much the crazy looking pic itself (and I say that once you get to thinking the person's crazy, you are always going to see the crazy there,) they took offense to, but the caption,"Queen of Rage." Way I saw it was they were saying that did not pass the "Would a man get the same treatment," test. Cough. Burp. Fart. Substitute King or Prince for Queen? Follow me?

More surprising was Jon Stewart taking the anti Newsweek side. Granted, his routine on it ended with some eminently logical and liberal seeming POV that if you want to show how crazy she is, do it with her own words, line. So it's sorta weak for a defense. But I will get to analysis why that was a waste of time (and Jon. Go for the joke always. My man, you do it so well. But don't encourage or condone Wing Nut Victim hood. Even if there is as you said a grain of truth there. If there was a mountain, ok. But give those fuckers a grain, and they will not stop whining about their mistreatment for years. Remember that. Look ahead, not just in the short term. Hmm kay?)

Now on the Catholic Church Lady. I semi sorta agree with her. I agree that the thing is not so much the picture was sexist. But I think even she goes over the top with the it's unprofessional shit. Go here for that.

Now for the analytical reality check. I have studied most communication fields, worked in some, and at least was employed by/at a multi media communications corp. And as I have argued before, no matter what the medium, editing is as much what the process is about as is "creativity" and "creating." I would go so far as to say editing is built into all such processes including the sub processes employed by the artist/artisan. And when we get to photography, editing is done from the choice of camera, lens, aperture, film (if going old school,) lighting, angle, and such. And that is before you get to the darkroom/work room and play with your image to prepare and edit it for publication.

Now don't get me wrong. I think people can take the editing and tinkering far too far. But let us never pretend that the photographer and the editor, and in some cases the Editor (mgmt.) are not engaging in some form of editorial (journalistic) editing, in addition to the practical editing that is routine for the medium, when ever they are mocking up a cover shoot.

Do I think Newsweek went too far here? No. Again, I have the insider's pov. I get it the editing process, as a practical matter, is done on one level in order to communicate some idea. I have heard/read Tina Brown's tweet. And even if it sounds sorta bull shitty, it does convey the core truth that I have been talking about. They are trying to communicate messages in the cover art. They are NOT trying to be neutral. Don't ever believe that shit. Now if you want to believe they should try to be neutral all the time? Go head. It's your time you are wasting.

And in order to communicate my actual contempt for that idea, if you believe it, I dare you to hold your breath till that is the default in all magazine publishing. Let me know how that works out for you.


I originally thought to end it on that snarky note. But since starting this essay I have had in mind that iconic photo of Adali Stevenson, showing the worn sole of his shoe. Imagine if the editor decided to crop the shoe out of the picture. Good thing he didn't. I'd say. In that instance we are talking about the difference between an ordinary image, and a Pulitzer winner. Just saying.