____________________________________________________________________

N.Y. Times Photographs of Bush & Kerry, May 2004

[Reproduction and distribution permitted with attribution:© 2004 by Tom Holzel, www.velocityassociates.net.] 

In the month of May, 2004, the NY Times ran 23 photographs of John Kerry and 21 photographs of George Bush.  The total area of Kerry’s  photographs was 522 square inches and the Bush photos measured 482 square inches.  

Kerry’s “Photo Quality Rating” is 90 compared to Bush’s 34, or an almost three times advantage for Kerry.  The Quality Rating times the picture size is 1875 for Kerry and 1154 for Bush, or 62% to 38%.   There were 10 excellent photos of Kerry (rating 5 or better, see rating system, below) and 6 of Bush. In addition there were zero photos of Kerry with a negative rating, while there were 4 negative photos of Bush. (A negative rating occurs when the four factors of the quality rating scale add up to less than zero. In other words, they make the subject look dopey.)  

Interpretation  

The single most glaring evidence of photographic bias is that the Times ran more, larger and better photos of their preferred presidential candidate campaigning than photos of the sitting President of the United States.  All Kerry photos except one showed him campaigning.  Photos of Bush were divided among his official duties as sitting President, Commander-in-Chief, (i.e., “news” photos), in addition to those of his campaign activities.  While Bush’s chin scrape was shown, not a single photograph showed Kerry’s empty seat in the Senate. Given a mind-set that “Everything is politics,” it is easy to see how the photo editor dumped presidential news photos into the same pot as photos of partisan campaign activity.  

Kerry’s photographs are artistically composed, his demeanor is serious and regal and the setting often included (6 times) background signage that promotes his campaign themes.  Bush’s photos are usually less artistic and did not show any advantageous signage.   

The first two photos of this essay are classic examples illustrating the N.Y. Times’ photographic bias.   The shot of Kerry is a Karsh classic: a dramatic, high-contrast shot catching Kerry making a decisive and graphically powerful gesture.  In the background in soft focus is the forceful message “Strong America.” In the month of May six Kerry shots showed nicely framed supportive signage in the background. There were zero such supportive words in the Bush photos.  The Bush photo against the stars of the American flag is especially revealing. Without any useful background signage, the editors insert a negative headline. Also, when photographers achieve interesting angles such as that one, they typically take dozens, often scores of repetitive exposures with their motorized Nikons.  Thus, the photo editor undoubtedly had a large choice of images, all graphically the same--except for the varying expressions on Bush’s face.  That he chose this gawking expression shows his intent stronger than any statistics.  In the 31 days of this study, there is not a single “bad” photo of John Kerry, yet there are at least four such negative shots of Bush.  

What does this lop-sided depiction of Kerry and Bush mean?  First, it proves that strong emotional conviction not movable by facts or logic (i.e., ideology) makes fair representation of opposing positions impossible.  No amount of superior intelligence, no long experience and no “editorial guidelines” will ever result in an even-handed depiction of the activity of two politicians by editors who have strong emotional convictions about one candidate over the other.  This is as true of conservative as liberal ideologues.  

An equally important conviction of ideologues--but this is primarily a leftist conceit--is that because they are so intelligent, they truly believe themselves to be either “middle-of-the-road” in their convictions, or at least clearly able to recognize the middle-of-the-road position.  Since intelligence has nothing to do with ideology, this abiding faith in their neutrality is always misplaced.  

Corrective Action  

The photographic record at the NY Times is clear:  Even the best newspaper in the world, that is, the paper with the best reporters and editors—-The New York Times—-has not achieve anything approaching fairness in the photographic depiction of the candidates.  Photographic bias has not crept in;  it has run amuck.   

There are only two possible solutions to reducing bias:  

1. Use editors who are disinterested in politics—-clearly not an option in a newspaper.
2. Introduce a diversity of bias to all the other diversities (race, sex, age, religion, etc.) prevalent at the NY Times , so that excesses of one side can be immediately countered by remonstrations from the other.  The result would be an ongoing healthy tussle with the best chance of the achieving balance.  However, this tactic is viewed by ideologues as wooden stakes aimed directly at their hearts. They know what is right and feel they are being ordered to deliberately introduce heresy.  It would be an order fought tooth and nail. 

The Times has already taking the splendid first step of righting the editorial diversity of the Op-Ed page by including some heavy-weight conservative columnists.  David Brooks is a huge asset, and William Safire has been un-muzzled from his grammar column to give voice in healthy opposition to the previous monotonous litany of liberal received wisdom. This bold strategic move has greatly improved the liveliness and the diversity—-and greatly improved the quality--of the Times’ editorial content. Bravo for that.   

All that remains is for the Times to do is to find a Photo Co-Editor who would pick at least half the Bush photos to be published.  (And a Letters Co-Editor of equally opposite persuasion who would be given one-third of the letters space each week—but that’s another story.) 

Methodology

The New England Edition of the NY Times was used for most of this analysis, along with a few New England Final Editions.  Only the first section, and (if it was separate) “The Nation” section were used.  On Sundays, “The Week in Review” was also used.  

The Photo Quality Rating is the following:  
 

Score	Expression   Posture		Setting	Graphics
2	Beaming	Erect	message	NA
1	Handsome	healthy	positive	Set-up
0	neutral	normal	neutral	normal
-1	Stern	awkward	odd	odd
-2	Pained	stumbling	negative	NA

 Thus, a photo of a beaming candidate standing upright and tall with a soft-focus “Equality” in the background got 6 points plus a score of ±1 or zero for the graphic quality of the shot (e.g., high contrast, striking graphics, or dull distant shots, etc.).   

Since large photos are more impactful than small ones, a separate rating was made multiplying each photo’s quality rating by its area in square inches.  In that metric, Kerry had a rating of  1875 vs 1154 for Bush, i.e. 2 to 1 for Kerry vs Bush.  

The raw data of the analysis is shown below. 

  _________________________________________________________________

Bush-Kerry Photos in the New York Times, August 2004 : Favoritism, but not bias

Publication permitted with attribution: By Tom Holzel, www.velocityAssociates.net  
   

Photos above: Positive signage and dynamicism vs. no signs and awkward demeanor--these have been the hallmarks of the Times' photo coverage of the Presidential campaign.

During the month of August, 2004, The New York Times ran 93 photographs of the Presidential candidate teams: 46 photos of George Bush/Dick Cheney and 47 of  John Kerry/John Edwards.  The campaign must be heating up.  This is more than twice as many as ran of the two teams in the month of May (44). 

Although the number of photos of each candidate is the same, their sizes are not. As in May, the Times favors showing larger pictures of Kerry.  Tellingly, all the photos of Kerry this month (below) were of his campaign, and none of him doing his job as Senator. 

What these graphs show is that the Times is increasing the size differential between the Bush and Kerry photos since May.  On the other hand, in May, the Times ran six photos of George Bush in which his face was oddly contorted–and no bad pictures of Kerry.  The biggest difference between May and August is that in August Bush and Kerry receive equal treatment in facial expression.  

Now both candidates are shown with odd (or no) facial Expressions

 Here are the photo statistics for the month of August, 2004:  

	Bush	Kerry	Delta K
Cum size	960	1158	120%
No. of photos	46	47	102%
Ave size	20.9	24.6	120%
< 7 in sq	12	5	40%
Cum Rating	2415	4868	200%

We see from these figures that:  

• Kerry’s photos are 20% bigger than those of Bush.  
• As in May the number of photos of each team is essentially the same.
• The size/quantity discrepancy is made up by 12 photos of Bush that are smaller than seven square inches vs. 5 of Kerry.
• The cumulative rating (area times picture quality) is higher for Kerry, but–surprisingly–this is not due to better Kerry picture quality (as it was in May).  

	Face	Posture	Setting	Graphics	Signage	Color	Position	Total
Bush	16	20	27	29	3	5	56	156
Kerry	13	19	29	27	23	5	55	171

Except for a continuing predisposition to include helpful signage in the Kerry photos, the quality rating for the two teams is a dead heat!  This is quite different from May and suggests one of two possibilities:  

• May was an anomalous month.
• The photo staff was surprised at the tally of unbalanced images published in May and is making a genuine effort to present the campaign in a fair light.   

Conclusion:  Favoritism, but no blatant photo bias in August, 2004  

It would be deadening to require any editor to adhere to a set of Stalinist   “guidelines” of exact positioning, size, quantity and content of his newspaper’s political photographs.  The Times’ photos in the month of May were sufficiently biased in Kerry’s favor, that the Times’ Ombudsman asked that a repeat analysis be performed for the month of August.  The photos of the two candidates in August are close enough in quality to conclude that, for that month at least, any photo bias in the selection and placement of Bush-Kerry photographs was minor. It consisted of a 20% favoring of Senator Kerry in terms of image size, and a seven-to-one advantage of the inclusion of favorable signage.  These are not trivial differences, but they are small enough that they cannot reasonably be called bias.  

The most significant aspect that changed in August from May is that good and bad images of both candidates were shown.  With the addition in August of photos of Kerry with less than perfect expressions, and with the inclusion of flattering photos of Bush–both elements largely missing in May–the Times  essentially met its obligation to give a reasonably  unbiased photographic depiction of the news. (This is the first time in 30 years of propaganda analysis that I have seen an unforced change from biased to an essential essentially neutral depiction of information.  A miracle, or simply high-professionalism?)

*********************************************************

The biggest image bias remaining (and it's not the NY Times)?

TV news programs insist on showing dated footage, and palming it off as recent imagery.  The same footage of Michael Jackson arriving for his trial was shown day after day, with the broadcasters conveniently forgetting to mention that the footage was days old.  The biggest ancient footage scam? The shots of Terry Shavio ( the woman who has been comatose for over ten years).  Day after day, week after week, ALL the TV "news" broadcasters discussed her fate while showing footage that was at least ten years old--as if to suggest that this was her current state. (The footage showed her with her eyes open.)  Why, other than that they are too lazy and feel you, the viewers, are too stupid to know the difference?  Because they are making a conscious attempt to push the point of view that she should not be taken off life support--witness her semi-conscious state.  The only cure (and this should be mandatory for all news imagery): Visible on-screen date-stamping of all news footage shown over the air. (They stamp footage as “live;” let then stamp old footage with its date.)

[Well, I'll be darned. After months--years--of showing ancient footage of poor Mrs Schiavo with up-to-date commentary (thus implying that the footage is also recent) some news footage is now--March 21, 2005--being date-stamped. BITCHING WORKS!] 

*************************************************************

 [For critical analysis of other subjects, see  http://www.velocitypress.com/ ]