Posted on 12/11/2013 8:32:34 PM PST by kristinn
SNIP
The official photographs the White House hands out are but visual news releases. Taken by government employees (mostly former photojournalists), they are well composed, compelling and even intimate glimpses of presidential life. They also show the president in the best possible light, as you’d expect from an administration highly conscious of the power of the image at a time of instant sharing of photos and videos.
By no stretch of the imagination are these images journalism. Rather, they propagate an idealized portrayal of events on Pennsylvania Avenue.
If you take this practice to its logical conclusion, why have news conferences? Why give reporters any access to the White House? It would be easier to just have a daily statement from the president (like his recorded weekly video address) and call it a day. Repressive governments do this all the time.
SNIP
Allowing media access and providing official photos are not mutually exclusive. News outlets can choose (as The Times has occasionally done) to use an official, or handout, photo when its news value is compelling and the photo is taken in a place logically off limits to journalists, like the private residential quarters of the White House. But The Associated Press rejects a vast majority of White House handouts because they show newsworthy activities of public significance, in locations where we strongly believe journalists should have access.
Until the White House revisits its draconian restrictions on photojournalists’ access to the president, information-savvy citizens, too, would be wise to treat those handout photos for what they are: propaganda.
Santiago Lyon, a longtime photojournalist, is vice president and director of photography at The Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
Giggling and taking a selfie at a funeral — the very kind of truthful image Hussein doesn’t want the world to see.
NYT complaining that the WH is taking them out of the loop in creating fake news.
Let's hope he continues to offend them; if they get it in their heads to take him out, well, that'd be popcorn-worthy.
On that we can all agree. . . .
When it comes to creating fake news the NYTs does not appreciate amateurs. They have spent decades perfecting their craft.
No matter how they frame his photos, he’ll always be lower than a pile of dung in my view.
Worth a 10,000-word analytical story by itself.
Sad the New York Times took so long to see Obama's a totalitarian in spirit - - maybe late's better than never. Santiago Lyon did notice...
Maybe it's not too late...
Hard to say. The Times was party to this has happening - what with their idiotic fawning over 'the one'... and their racist lower standards for Obama. Let's hope the Times can pretend to be a real newspaper long enough to assist the country with remaining free.
Obama's control of pictures is the tip of his control-freak iceberg...
Sadly, this is most likely a “random act of journalism” as espoused by El Rushbo.
But Lyon's not the typical brain-dead New York Times 'we suck more' type. She's with the AP - a group that's been standing up to Obama for some time now. Then again, like you say it's probably just a random accidental act of journalism - one unlikely to be repeated or understood by the writer...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.