NYT: Campaign Photos of Happy Clinton, McCain, Obama -- Sinister Romney

By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
February 5, 2008 - 13:42 ET

From the "a picture says a thousands words" file, take a gander at the New York Times' campaign graphic (right side of page, scroll down). It shows a happy and smiling Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama all of whom are smiling widely, showing teeth and looking quite inviting. Then comes the photo of Mitt Romney. For Mitt the NYT chose a picture with a closed-mouth, wry smile, looking down at the viewer, eyebrows heavily shadowed. Romney looks sinister compared to the photos the other three picked by the Times.

Now, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that they want to make Mitt look uncomfortable, or sinister? Can it be that the Times wants people to see Romney in a worse light compared to the others?

It is instructive to note that the Times supports McCain. Making Romney look less appealing in their graphic is quite a smooth, subtle move on the part of the Times. But it is unmistakable that this is what they are doing. The photo of Mitt was undeniably chosen to make Mitt look less appealing. It is a well-known fact of human nature that a smile showing teeth is more appealing than a grin with lips firmly clamped shut. So, it is unmistakable that this is why they chose the Mitt picture that they did.

The tricks of the liberal MSM never ceases to amaze, eh?

**Note** that the graphic I am talking about is a NYT "ad" style banner. It may appear as a different ad from click to click. So, if you hit the link I provided, you may have to refresh it several times to get to the NYT graphic in question.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

well Warner

February 5, 2008 - 13:45 ET by candance

Just be thankful they actually found a picture of Romney instead of nicking an old photo of Brigham Young from Wikipedia.

That's progress. Baby steps, you know.

just like

February 5, 2008 - 18:38 ET by UndercoverConservative

when they used to show Billyboy they *always* shot from the same side and angle, trying to get the whole "Elvis" thing going?

and why the *only* shots of GWB are face on where he's got his mouth open or eyes wide, implying idiocity or stupidity? Going thru thousands of frames of video to find the most unflattering single frame available..

 

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

further proof Mitt is the

February 5, 2008 - 13:47 ET by TruthMonger

further proof Mitt is the most qualified:)...
the NYT loves the other 3...
would any of you ever vote with the NYT...? Gad...

How obvious

February 5, 2008 - 13:47 ET by iveseenitall

How obvious! But it's the NYT. "The NYT--Expect Nothing"

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Yeesh... Did you know

February 5, 2008 - 13:52 ET by balboa

Yeesh...

Did you know that liberals are responsible for cancer, too? I don't know how, but I'm sure Warner does...

I love how you like to

February 5, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Warner Todd Huston

I love how you like to comment on anything but what is posted. Enemy to the end, eh?

I posted at length about

February 5, 2008 - 13:58 ET by balboa

I posted at length about your ground-breaking Mellencamp story.

This one's too silly for that.

You've always got silly

February 5, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Warner Todd Huston

You've always got silly covered quite well, of course. You specialize in it. Everything you've ever posted is silly. Still, I'm always so glad that you chase me around from thread to thread to help everyone see that the most extreme, leftie poster here hates me. It does my rep really good! I haven't thanked you before, I know, but I am rectifying that here.

I'm far from the most

February 5, 2008 - 14:06 ET by balboa

I'm far from the most extreme lefty on this site. It's just that your posts are very irrational and not very well thought out, operating on the smallest threads of evidence and then jumping to wild conclusions that only the most ardent UFO enthusiast could support.

Irrational?

February 5, 2008 - 15:00 ET by iveseenitall

Yes, you are quite irrational, Warner. Not like those "rational" people: Rosie, Maher, Behar, Olberman, Moore, Glover, Penn, Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden, et.al. "Liberals" always try to trivialize the truth. It's a trick. Hang in there, Warner.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Yeah, because I've always

February 5, 2008 - 18:34 ET by balboa

Yeah, because I've always championed the efforts of "Rosie, Maher, Behar, Olberman, Moore, Glover, Penn, Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden, et.al."

Yes Balboa, actually they

February 5, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Gary P Jackson

Yes Balboa, actually they are!

Haha does anyone else think

February 5, 2008 - 14:19 ET by ziplinedown

Haha does anyone else think that mitt looks like the anti-christ in that picture.

"give me a break!" - John Stossel

I have never seen the AC,

February 5, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Dan The Man 2

I have never seen the AC, have you?

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

jeebus...

February 5, 2008 - 14:34 ET by mvfreeman

That's what passes for sinister these days??

Now I just wonder if there is anybody out there who will only EVER see this one pic of Mitt, and decide not to vote for him.

Hmmmm.

This is nothing new...the

February 5, 2008 - 14:25 ET by bigtimer

This is nothing new...the leftist msm always show the poorest pictures of those they fear or want prosecuted or defeated...

Other way around they are always shown in the best light...some from pictures of way beyond the past.

Hypocrisy at their finest...they just think nobody will notice...

Wrong!

Is it just me or does that

February 5, 2008 - 14:29 ET by hydrodynDM

Is it just me or does that picture of Romney bring to mind The Joker?

It's one pic...

February 5, 2008 - 14:56 ET by mvfreeman

"It is instructive to note that the Times supports McCain. Making Romney look less appealing in their graphic is quite a smooth, subtle move on the part of the Times."

Apparently somebody at the Times didn't get the memo on that because  McCain's bio pic is terrible:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html

compared to Romney's  nice toothy grin pic:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/index.html

Come on Warner.

I think there could be worse shots of him...

February 5, 2008 - 15:48 ET by NCConservative

but it's no secret that visual bias DOES exist. A professor I had in grad school did a study on it (I assisted in collecting data, and I lost track of how many images I burned to CD), and her unsurprising conclusion was that online media consistently put forth images more flattering to liberals. Angle, cropping, facial expression, lighting...all of these factors and more are considered when choosing photos.

Also, I'm sure people here are familiar with the Richard Nixon/sweating performance. Image matters.

I don't put anything past the NYT. They will twist and spin and manipulate anyway they can think of to cast the opposition in a bad light. (no pun intended)

"CAUCAuS " Front page

February 5, 2008 - 16:02 ET by docb

On the front page of 'The Caucaus' [NYT}today I scrolled down to find 6 pictures of clinton, 3 of Obama, and 2 each for rOMNEY AND McCAIN....I WOULD CALL THAT BLANTANT BIAS.
At 5:30 am MST, RCP had a article on the felon donors for the clintons...by the time I can back to it at 8:00..it was REMOVED.
Anyone catch it?

Perhaps after viewing the

February 5, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Jer

Perhaps after viewing the actual-size photos I might feel differently, but, comparing these, Romney's depiction seems the most "presidential" of the group. I hate to repeat the overused term, but "gravitas" comes to mind.

And will someone tell me why the MSM--if they truly prefer a Democratic president--would be promoting McCain so heavily inasmuch as all of the current national head-to-head polls show him in a virtual tie with Obama and beating Hillary, while Romney would be pulverized by either.

Jer