Newspaper editors have been selective in what they deem fit to print. Like Hillary’s wrinkles. Now we know Hillary looks like a Chinese Shar-Pei when her file photo isn’t shot through filters and put through some PhotoShop work. Why has it taken so long for the mainstream media to show us the real, unfiltered photo of Hillary?
By Mick Gregory
In an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, former “journo” and current professor David Hazinski seems to imagine that it’s the job of the “news industry” to “monitor and regulate” the content of blogs and Internet journalism.
I’m serious, he really said that! This self aggrandizing piece is so filled with blind assumptions and presumptuous fill that it might even be judged a farce and satire. But this liberal is serious.
BTW-Now we know that “professiona photo journalists” have been filtering the lense and smoothing photos of Hillary Clinton to promote her campaign. Exactly the same tacktic was used to prop up FDR, he was never photographed in his wheelchair.
I’ve have seen quite a few of these attacks from the ivory tower against Internet citizen journalism with nose-in-the-air, delusional, self-congratulatory pap.
Hazinski’s takes it to the next step, though. In his piece “Unfettered ‘citizen journalism’ too risky,” Hazinski, a former NBC correspondent and current professor of telecommunications and head of broadcast news at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism, has graciously accepted to grant himself and his fellow “professionals” to the role of overlord, making sure that lowly Internet writers conform to the obviously higher standards that he and his fellow journalists employ so successfully in their field — say Bernie Ward, Dan Rather or Jayson Blair, for example.
Hazinski can’t even grant that citizen journalists could be either a citizen or a journalist, it seems, as in nearly every usage of the term he puts scare quotes around the words “citizen journalists” calling the relative truth of both words, singular or combined, into question. Even the title of the piece uses quotes around the words to call into question the legitimacy of the term.
Hainski, perhaps when the U.S. is governed by Democrats in the majority of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court, then they will grant “professional journalist” licences to those worthy, like you!
Here is some kind of “reason” by a Washington Post writer on why we have finally seen the real Hillary.
The hangdog candidate photograph is a weapon in the war of attrition. They are easily gathered, because no politician can be completely upbeat every day of every week for two years of solid campaigning. All it takes is one tired moment, one puffy-eyed, early-morning, haven’t-had-the-coffee-yet photograph, and the image is in the arsenal. Even better is if the candidate lets down his or her guard momentarily in the presence of another candidate, so that, say, Barack Obama can be seen looking happy and confident as Hillary Clinton looks tired and depressed in the same frame.
In the partisan media (much of the blogosphere, the tabloids and several cable channels), these images are used freely and gleefully. In media that strive for objectivity, the hangdog shot raises difficult issues. In an earlier age of newspapering, sorting through the archives for an image that confirmed your headline was acceptable practice. Today, serious newspapers try to use images from the most recent campaign events rather than something a few months old, even if it fits the story line better.