Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Visual Communication Quarterly Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hvcq20 Mythe & Presidential Campaign Photographs Carl Glassman a & Keith Kenney b a Department of Journalism and Mass Communication , New York University , USA b College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina , Columbia, USA Published online: 02 Dec 2010. To cite this article: Carl Glassman & Keith Kenney (1994) Mythe & Presidential Campaign Photographs, Visual Communication Quarterly, 1:4, 4-7, DOI: 10.1080/15551393.1994.10387508 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15551393.1994.10387508 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions VCQ / FALL 1994 J Presidential Campaign Photographs BY CARL GLASSMAN AND KEITH KENNEY Weve observed that campaign photographs are highly conven- tionalized images that tell a limited number of stories. For exam- ple, they frequently depict candidates as happy, dynamic and upbeat, but seldom as worried, frustrated or harried. In addition, campaign photos show candidates with children, farmers, blue-col- lar workers and police, but they dont show members of the lower- class or suburbia, and they dont show the political players who truly influence the process - major contributors and well-financed special interests. Candidates spend three-fourths of their time in rich peo- ples homes raising money, remarked Susan Estrich, the former Dukakis campaign manager; yet in a random- ly selected sample of more than 200 campaign pictures from 1992, candi- dates were pictured with contributors less than two percent of the time, and none of Clintons or Bushs 10 biggest contributors were pi ~tured. ~ Cam- paign photographs also are filled with symbols that have become cliches, especially the American flag? The purpose of this study is to test the validity of our observations. POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS Many people believe conventional campaign photographs are inevitable because of the influence of media article in News Photograplier magazine, The problem is that politicians have learned to manage the coverage of their cam- paigns. . . . Candidates and their staffs have become the ultimate journalistic gatekeepers, deciding what is and is not news by allow- ing access only to those events which they wish to publ i ci z~.~ Some photographers, however, such as Arthur Grace, can take campaign photographs with neither the usual grins and forceful gestures, nor the adoring crowds.6 He did not have special access to candidates; the vast majority of the pictures were public - not private - moments available to any news photographer wishing to capture them. Fundraising events may be more pri- vate and difficult to attend, but photog- raphers can get access. A New York Tirrtes Magmitre cover story on David Geffin, the movie and record industry billionaire, included a picture of Clinton greeting Geffin and actress Carrie Fisher at a dressy campaign benefit. Hut do journalists want such pictures? The Concord (N.H.) Moriitors unusually intimate behind-the-scenes coverage of candidate Clinton excluded local wealthy backers. The papers photo edi- tor, J eff Forester, said that although Clinton was always hobnobbing with wealthy people, such scenes were never considered material for photo coverage. To show Clinton with his biggest finan- cial supporter, Forester said, makes you feel funny.8 According to Carol Squiers, standard handlers, who supposedly use the pic- ture press like putty to shape candi- date imagery at will. According to an AP/J oN PIERRE LASSAIGNE Editors often chose photos like this one of Paul gas, in which he &=plays a gesture of strength. candidate photos are a result of journal- istic routines and editorial protocol. Newspaper photographers, for example, 4 D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ M e r e l
B a s ]
a t
0 8 : 3 4
2 4
J u n e
2 0 1 4
VCQ / FALL 1994 feel required to shoot tight for impact and readability. Step- ping back to include more in the frame would make it possi- ble to establish more complex relationships and ideas within the image, but in general, they want to emphasize a single emotion or idea. Her article, however, is illustrated with an array of mostly unpublished campaign photos that are any- thing but formulaic, and prove, like the Grace pictures, that photographers can come away with unexpected i mag~ry.~ New York Times photographer Ed Keating also produced pictures of the 1992 campaign that neither glamorized the process nor intentionally demeaned it. By choosing a more distant position and a short focal-length lens, he sometimes made the candidate appear smaller than in more convention- al photos, but a size that matched an average persons view. Other times Kcating photographed quiet, routine moments, such as Clinton looking at a New Hampshire voter whose thoughts appear to be elsewhere. Although both Clinton and the voter were backlit, Keating refused to balance with flash (page 6). The result isa realistic dullness in lighting (as well as action) that israrely shown in campaign photography.10 THE MYTHS OF CAMPAIGN PHOTOGRAPHS Perhaps the most important reason for classic campaign photo- journalism is that journalists, politicians and readers share an idco- logical viewpoint. Pictures are the visual articulation of populist ideology, the persistent belief in the power of the people.l Since the J ackson era, the inclusion of the common man in the politi- cul process has stood at the core of the democratic creed.12 Accord- ing to this highly held valuc, citizens are more or less equals in their influence on elites; and elites accept the policy consensus which the public develop^."^^From George Washington (who was criticized in opposition Republican newspapers for favoring draw- ing roonis and stately nods over shaking hands with the pco- pie)'" to Hill Clinton (lambasted for a $200 haircut aboard Hair- force Onc), the press has attacked presidents who appeared to stray too far from the reach of the common man. As an expression of such ideals, classic campaign photojournal- ism functions as myth. J oanne Morreale defines myth as a socially constructed representation of reality that articulates the central beliefs, values and preoccupations of a culture.15 So powerful is the myth that, consciously or unconsciously, photographers and editors may accommodate candidate handlers by willfully choosing upbeat and skillfully staged images in order to connect to their renders and to their own preconceived, idealized notions of the electoral process. We should not be surprised, therefore, that newspaper and newsmagazine photographs frequently portray presidents in touch with Middle America. But in modern presidential cam- paigns, niost written coverage precludes the presence of average folk and concentrates, instead, on the candidates and other elites who are closer to the process: campaign aides, potential running mates, media consultants, prominent supporters, and leaders of special-interest groups who are wooed for endorsc- ments. I t also emphasizes problems and conflicts. Reporters dwell on gaffes, allegations of moral and legal misconduct and infight- ing and other troubles within a candidates campaign. Candidates who are trailing in the polls receive more unfavorable coverage than the frontrunner. Overall, the tone of campaign coverage is neutral to negative.16 CARL GLASSMAN Photographers prepare to photograph Paul Tsongas as he dives into a New Hampshire pool. IDENTIFYING MYTHS No single set of attributes can comprise a comprehensive and definitive myth test for all candidate photos. The idea of myth is slippery - many people have defined it many different ways. In addition, readers interpretation of mythic messages is often subjec- tive. Context - captions, headlines and story content - influences their perceptions as docs readers knowledge of photography and politics and their view of particular candidates. We believe, howev- er, that the following characteristics can be used to distinguish mythic from non-mythic photographs. In general, a photograph has more mythic elements if the candi- date looks happy, confident, caring, strong or determined. Others appear interested or enthusiastic. I t also is a visual cliche that has been seen before. I t comniunicates quickly because you see the peo- ple as representatives of groups - children, farmers, the press. Many viewers readily believe the message and they have a positive emotional reflex because it resonates with their needs and desires. As Marshall Mcl-uhan said, Myth is a reduction of collective experience to a visual form.18 Mythic photographs are constructions that are crafted to serve instrumental purposes. Even when intention is discerned behind the presence of a myth, they are not necessarily rejected as false or illusory. They include symbols with positive or sympathetic conno- tations, such as patriotism. Finally, a photo has more elements of myth if the candidates size, position or relationship to others peo- ple or elements makes him seem important. Mn HOD We looked at photographs showing any of the presidential can- didates that were published in The Ne w York Times and Daily News during the months of February and October in 1984, 1988 and 1992. We expected more controlled, mythic photographs in October. We also expected that elite newspapers such as the Tirim would avoid visual cliches and publish photos of particular people and spontaneous events, while populist papers would run more emotional, sensational and mythic images. I f mythic campaign photographs persist throughout this sample, then we can assume the results will hold true for all recent campaigns and most papers. In addition to analyzing the mythic nature of the sample pho- 5 D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ M e r e l
B a s ]
a t
0 8 : 3 4
2 4
J u n e
2 0 1 4
VCQ / FALL 1994 tographs, we also noted how often candi- dates were portrayed in one of the follow- ing seven roles: beloved leader, dynamic speaker, media star, the glad-to-see-you candidate, athleteloutdoorsman, father figure and family figure. These roles will be explained in the findings section. FINDINGS A total of 445 photographs were ana- lyzed, with 315 (71 percent) published in The Ne w York Tirries and 130 in the Daily News . More pictures were pub- lished in October (54 percent) than in Feb- ruary. The most common type of mythic pho- tograph was the glad-to-see-you image of candidates waving, pointing, shaking hands or giving a thumbs-up (37.5 percent of all published photographs). These pho- tographs of candidates wading through outstretched arms and smiling faces often distort the true nature of the crowd, which may actually be a large group of curiosity seekers who have come to glimpse a famous person or take hidher picture. Television viewers or readers, however, see a throng of enthusiastic supporters (true supporters are given signs and placed up front in camera range). EDWARD KEATING / THE NEW YORK TIMES Edward Keating photographied Bill Clinton with a voter before the New Hampshire primary, providing a perspcctive that was closer to the way ordinary people saw the election. The second-most common mythic photograph showed candi- dates as dynamic speakers (13 percent). With a non-expressive speaker, photographers try to get an active-looking picture, even though it will be unrepresentative of the subject. Paul Tsongas, for example, did not have a convincing public smile and his body did not convey vigor. But he came to understand that before and after his speech he could raise his arms like a victorious boxer and pro- vide the visual media with the strong leader images they favor. Variations ran again and again. The third-most common mythic photograph showed a beloved -leader ( 1 1 percent). In these pictures, the politician is being applauded, presented with a birthday cake, accepting an award, or otherwise glowingly receiving the praise or appreciation of a group ( 1 1 percent). Other categories of mythic photographs were less common. Only 3 percent showed candidates as media stars. Besieged by competing photographers (who look like paparazzi) and reporters, the candidate gains an aura of importance that transcends politics - helshe becomes a celebrity. Another 3 percent showed candi- dates as father figures. Contrary to popular belief, presidential can- didates rarely kiss babies and children. They do, however, shake their hands, slap them five, hug them and hoist them into the air. Byappearing with a child, candidates are cast in a glow of reflected innocence and project an image of gentleness and concern for edu- cation and the future. They also take on god-like proportions next to little boys and girls. An additional 4 percent of published pho- tographs showed candidates as family figures in the company of spouse, children or parents. These images may be as carefully scripted as the huge display of Bush clan members at the Republi- can National Convention or as allegedly candid as Bill Clinton sprawled on a couch, his head rcsting on Hillarys shoulder. 6 Regardless, they present rpassuring imagery of candidates who, deep down, are as human as we are. Finally, candidates appeared as a mythic athleteloutdoorsman in 6.5 percent of the photos. Of course, some sports are more suitably populist than others. During the 1992 campaign, Neiusrueek reported that aides discouraged President Bush from manic rounds of his favorite elitist pastimes, golf and boating because such pictures reinforce the image of an aristocratic president out of touch with the common man.l9 Out of 44.5 photographs, 105 (or 24 percent) were either non- mythic or could not clearly be coded as mythic or non-mythic. One striking result of this study is that the The Ne w York Tirrres and the Daily News published approximately the same proportion of non-mythic photographs. A chi square analysis clearly indicates a strong relationship between the newspapers and the type of photograph they pub- lish>O The Ne w York Tinres published fewer photographs of can- didates as athletes, father figures, family figures or beloved leader, and more photographs of candidates as dynamic speaker and glad- to-see-you candidate compared to the News. Analysis also shows a relationship between the year of publication and the type of phot0graph.l In 1984, the percentage of beloved- leader photographs was unusually high and the percentage of dynamic speaker photos was low. In 1988, photographs of candi- dates as dynamic-speaker and glad-to-see-you candidates were unusually common. In fact, there was an unusually high percentage of mythic photographs as spin doctors successfully dominated the 1988 campaign and photographers accepted photo opportunities. Four years later, however, the percentage of non-mythic pho- tographs was especially high as photographers took more honest pic- tures. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ M e r e l
B a s ]
a t
0 8 : 3 4
2 4
J u n e
2 0 1 4
VCQ / FALL 1994 CONCLUSIONS The weakening faith in democratic politics and governance comes about because people believe the system has been taken over by a professional class of politicians, lobbyists, journalists and political consultantsJ 2 One report asserts that Americans desper- ately want to believe that theirs is a government of, by, and for the people; deep down, however, very few think we have that today.23 This study shows that candidate handlers and editors both present a visual myth that taps into that desperate need in order to sell either a politician or a publication. Intuitively, both understand that populist imagery appeals to the American people. But what of accuracy and truth? Following are six points for pho- tographers and editors to consider: First, editors often consciously try to avoid picking pictures that are more flattering to one candidate than another. To bring about a more truly balanced view of the campaign, however, they should realize that such positive and reassuring pictures limit the readers understanding of the political process - less positive images also are needed. Second, we are so accustomed to the cliches and formulas of clas- sic campaign photographs that we take them for granted. Photogra- phers and editors should question what such pictures actually say about the candidate and ask if they are truly representative of the candidates personality and the way he spends his campaign day. Third, photographers and editors can aim towards showing the true nature of campaign events; that is, they can attempt to portray such events as they appear to those present rather than as they are meant to look for the camera. Fourth, editors can add to the truth of campaign pictures by providing substantive information about the true context of what is depicted. For example, if an average person is shown interacting with the candidate, is he or she one of many or only a few who met himduring that appearance? If the candidate is pictured talking to that person, did he appear with himfor symbolic purposes only? Fifth, if influential friends or wealthy, special interest donors are not appearing in pictures with the candidate, editors should ask why. The significance of what the pictures show may outweigh any lack of visual excitement. If photographers are excluded from events that would help readers make important visual connections between candidates and contributors, then editors should request pool coverage of these significant fundraisers or meetings. Sixth, because readers see so many electoral photographs during a campaign season, editors should consider what is new or signifi- cant about the photos they want to run and question whether a formulaic photo adds to the readers understanding of the candi- date and the campaign. In fact, campaign photos are so upbeat that readers should suspect bias when publications run unflattering candidate photos. See Keith Kenney and Chris Simpson, Was Coverage of the 1988 Presidential Race by Washingtons Two Major Dailies Biased? J ournalism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 349. Susan Estrich, speaking on a panel of campaign managers, C-SPAN, J an. 1, 1992. Carl Glassman, unpublished study, 1973. Publications included The New York Times, New York Daily News, Newsday, Newsweek, Time, and U S . News & World Report. Glassman randomly select- ed one week from each of eight months. Total photographs: 204. Roger Rosenblatt, in his prologue to P.F. Bentleys book of behind- the-scenes photos of the Clinton campaign, writes that the repeti- 7 tion of reds, whites and blues are numbing and emotionally drain- ing. When they are blared day in and day out, not only do people lose their enthusiasm for a campaign, but they feel a kind of embittered weariness, as if the colors, always on the edge of becoming cliches in themselves, helped to make a cliche of the entire process of choosing a president, a cliche even of the coun- try. See P. F. Bentley, Clinton: Portrait of Victory (New York: Warner Books, 1993): p. 9. Carol Schlagheck, Enough is Enough, Say Columnists, News Photographer, September 1992, p. 57. Arthur Grace, Choose Me: Portraits of a Presidential Race (Hanover, NH: University of New England, 1989). David Geffen: Still Hungry, The New York Times Magazine, May 2, 1993, p. 30. J eff Forester, interview with Carl Glassman, December 12, 1992. See Dianne Hagaman, The J oy of Victory, the Agony of Defeat: Stereotypes in Newspaper Sports Feature Photographs, Visual Sociology 8 (1993): 48-66; and William M. Ivins, J r., Prints and Visual Communication (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). lo The New York Times, February 18, 1992, p. 1. l1 Robert Lane, Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962): p. 167. 12 Gerald N. Grob and Robert N. Beck, ldeas in America (New York: The Free Press, 1970): p. 163. l3 Richard M. Merelman (ed.). Language, Symbolism, and Politics (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1992): pp. 2-3. l4 Roger Butterfield. The American Past: A History of the United States from Concord to the Great Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976): p. 22. 15 J oanne Morreale, A New Beginning: A Textual frame Analysis of the Political Campaign Film (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991): p. 46. l6 For a comprehensive analysis of tone and content in the written cov- erage of presidential campaigns, see: Thomas E. Patterson. Out of Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993). l7 For an in-depth discussion of myths in journalism and how they pro- mote enduring American values and ideals, see Carl Glassmans thesis, Why Is This Man Smiling?: A Cultural Analysis of Presidential Campaign Photojournalism, The Hunter College of the City University of New York, 1994. l8 Marshall McLuhan, Myth and Mass Media, Daedalus 88 (Spring l9 Can We Play Through, Newsweek, May 25, 1992, p. 6. 2o The chi square test was significant at the .001 level. 21 The chi square test was significant at the ,001 level. 22 Richard C. Harwood, Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America, report prepared by the Harwood Group for the Kettering Foundation. 23 Peter D. Hart and Doug Bailey. Report prepared for the Centel Corporation, October 1991. 1959): 339-48. Carl Glassman i s a photographer who covered the 1992 presidential campaign for the London Times. He also teaches photojournalism as an adjunct professor i n the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at New York University. He worked on this article in connection with his masters thesis at the Hunter College of the City University of New York. Keith Kenney i s an associate professor i n the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. D o w n l o a d e d