NY Times Crops Bush Out Of Selma Picture, Highlights Ferguson

pbrauer · Mar 8, 2015

BrewerBob said:
The cropped picture is right there for all to see.

No, it wasn't there.

Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio. Depending on the application, this may be performed on a physical photograph, artwork or film footage, or achieved digitally using image editing software.

President and Laura Bush were next to the first family at some point, they couldn't have been cropped out of this picture.

iguanaman · Mar 9, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I don't have a problem with them talking about Ferguson, but cutting President Bush out does reek of bias.

I'm puzzled? What bearing do a former President and first lady have on this article about a historic civil rights march? The only thing special about Bush and Laura was that they were nearly the only Republicans attending. If Jeb was there that would at least mean something since he wants to be President.

Grant · Mar 9, 2015

pbrauer said:
Newsbusters has no clue what cropping means

Someone does because it's apparent it occurred and that people noticed. It would have been a better shot and had more meaning had the former President been included.

President and Laura Bush were next to the first family at some point, they couldn't have been cropped out of this picture.

They were clearly cropped out of the NY Times photo. I'm sure the this is of little interest to either of them. It's just interesting that a major MSM would be this petty.

pbrauer · Mar 9, 2015

Grant said:
Someone does because it's apparent it occurred and that people noticed. It would have been a better shot and had more meaning had the former President been included.
They were clearly cropped out of the NY Times photo. I'm sure the this is of little interest to either of them. It's just interesting that a major MSM would be this petty.

In order be cropped out the picture they would need to be at the edge of the picture.

Peter Grimm · Mar 9, 2015

Good thing I don't read the New York Slimes. I try not to expose myself to the left's hackery.

Utility Man · Mar 9, 2015

:roll:

CanadaJohn · Mar 9, 2015

Declan said:
NY Times Crops Bush Out Of Selma Picture, Highlights Ferguson | The Daily Caller

On the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, The New York Times chose a front page picture of President Barack Obama, his family, and civil rights leaders who were there at the time. Missing from the photo, though only a few people down to the right, were former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura. The Times also focused quite a bit of their story on the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, even though the local and federal investigations into that event found race had zero role in it and they refused to bring charges.

For their front page, the Times curiously chose a picture that did not show the entire front line of marchers, choosing instead to leave the Bushes on the cutting room floor....

_____________________________________________________

seems pretty disrespectful to me. I have no love to be lost over George W. Bush, but since he doesn't really do politics anymore, his presence there was noteworthy just in that regard.

I noted in another thread yesterday that I hadn't known President and Laura Bush had participated in the march and was on the platform for the ceremonies until I read it in one of my Toronto newspapers and saw the full picture there.

Anyone claiming there's no bias in the media need only look at this picture to be disabused of that view.

CanadaJohn · Mar 9, 2015

pbrauer said:
In order be cropped out the picture they would need to be at the edge of the picture.

I'm quite surprised with your defense of this. The picture I saw in my Toronto newspaper was pretty clear and included President and Laura Bush quite easily. While the picture in the NY Times may not technically have been cropped, it is clear that the editors of the paper chose a picture angle for their front page that excluded them. That's editorial bias for whatever reason.

I would also note that many in the left wing media promoted comments from high profile black Americans who during the Bush Presidency claimed that President Bush hated black people. I remember quite clearly Kanye West's comments being played up and those of others as well. It would not look good to have that claim of hatred blown out of the water by a simple picture and so the pic with Bush in it could not be shown. What's funny is that since Obama took office, the great hope for American blacks, it can be argued that the financial and social status of blacks in America has dropped, not risen.

Hatuey · Mar 9, 2015

CanadaJohn said:
I'm quite surprised with your defense of this. The picture I saw in my Toronto newspaper was pretty clear and included President and Laura Bush quite easily. While the picture in the NY Times may not technically have been cropped, it is clear that the editors of the paper chose a picture angle for their front page that excluded them. That's editorial bias for whatever reason.

I would also note that many in the left wing media promoted comments from high profile black Americans who during the Bush Presidency claimed that President Bush hated black people. I remember quite clearly Kanye West's comments being played up and those of others as well. It would not look good to have that claim of hatred blown out of the water by a simple picture and so the pic with Bush in it could not be shown. What's funny is that since Obama took office, the great hope for American blacks, it can be argued that the financial and social status of blacks in America has dropped, not risen.

Interesting. What Toronto paper was it?

Gringo allstar · Mar 9, 2015

I wonder if this is the 2nd time the First Lady has been proud of her country?

SlevinKelevra · Mar 9, 2015

Utility Man said:
:roll:

but but but it's cropped.

(if that's all this boils down to)

bubbabgone · Mar 9, 2015

CanadaJohn said:
I'm quite surprised with your defense of this.

Click to expand...

The picture I saw in my Toronto newspaper was pretty clear and included President and Laura Bush quite easily. While the picture in the NY Times may not technically have been cropped, it is clear that the editors of the paper chose a picture angle for their front page that excluded them. That's editorial bias for whatever reason.

I would also note that many in the left wing media promoted comments from high profile black Americans who during the Bush Presidency claimed that President Bush hated black people. I remember quite clearly Kanye West's comments being played up and those of others as well. It would not look good to have that claim of hatred blown out of the water by a simple picture and so the pic with Bush in it could not be shown. What's funny is that since Obama took office, the great hope for American blacks, it can be argued that the financial and social status of blacks in America has dropped, not risen.

It's sad to say, CJ, but some here have decided to become a suicide bomber for the cause(s).

bubbabgone · Mar 9, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
but but but it's cropped.

(if that's all this boils down to)

The cool part is Rev. Al's instinct for the camera shot ... see him peeking out over Obama's left shoulder in the Times' shot?

CanadaJohn · Mar 9, 2015

Hatuey said:
Interesting. What Toronto paper was it?

I read the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun - (left and right viewpoints respectively) - but I've already recycled them so I can't say for sure which one or perhaps it was both papers. I'll check their websites and see if they have it there and get back to you.

DaveFagan · Mar 9, 2015

Grim17 said:
Where is she again Pete?

View attachment 67181618

It's about "Perception Management." Just another photo op. I can't fathom one useful thought that would justify a GW Bush presence at this event, unless he is to be arrested for war crimes and torture.

CanadaJohn · Mar 9, 2015

Hatuey said:
Interesting. What Toronto paper was it?

As a follow-up - it was in the print edition of the Toronto Sun, the right leaning newspaper. It was a Reuters photo by Jonathan Ernst.

pbrauer · Mar 9, 2015

CanadaJohn said:
I'm quite surprised with your defense of this. The picture I saw in my Toronto newspaper was pretty clear and included President and Laura Bush quite easily. While the picture in the NY Times may not technically have been cropped, it is clear that the editors of the paper chose a picture angle for their front page that excluded them. That's editorial bias for whatever reason.

I would also note that many in the left wing media promoted comments from high profile black Americans who during the Bush Presidency claimed that President Bush hated black people. I remember quite clearly Kanye West's comments being played up and those of others as well. It would not look good to have that claim of hatred blown out of the water by a simple picture and so the pic with Bush in it could not be shown. What's funny is that since Obama took office, the great hope for American blacks, it can be argued that the financial and social status of blacks in America has dropped, not risen.

I am not defending the picture, I am defending the idea that it was cropped which it is clearly not. The fact that Bush's were not in the picture, looks to me that they chose not to be there when the picture was taken, because they were marching with the Obama's.

CanadaJohn · Mar 9, 2015

pbrauer said:
I am not defending the picture, I am defending the idea that it was cropped which it is clearly not. The fact that Bush's were not in the picture, looks to me that they chose not to be there when the picture was taken, because they were marching with the Obama's.

Actually, as I understand it, both Bush's marched in the front row for the entire reenactment. It seems crazy to suggest that they got their picture taken in the march but then they chose not to be there when the Times pic was taken. It's probable, as I stated previously, that for editorial bias the Times choose to use a pic that was more focused on the center of the march, those around President Obama, and not the broader shot I saw that had the Bush's in it.

I firmly believe that if the next President is Republican and has a similar photo op and the media doesn't include Obama on the periphery or even front and center, you'll be complaining about media bias. And I also firmly believe, as was evidenced in the past, President Bush had Bill Clinton front and center when he was invited and/or involved in such a public event and never once would have felt overshadowed. President Bush doesn't have to narcissistic gene that is prevalent in President Obama's makeup.

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 9, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I don't have a problem with them talking about Ferguson, but cutting President Bush out does reek of bias.

ferguson had nothing to do with race, but of a thug getting what happens when you attack a cop after strong arm robbing a store.

tres borrachos · Mar 9, 2015

Grim17 said:
I would like to present an excerpt of the speech Obama gave in 2009 to commemorate this very day.

He tells a heart warming story of how what happened in Selma in 1965, and how it gave his mother and father the hope and courage they needed to bring a child into the world and start a family... Soon after that he says, the future president of the United States, Barack Obama Jr was born into this world.

Nothing brings a tear to my eye faster than a story about how the events in Selma in 1965, inspired the parents of our president to bring him into the world 4 years before what happened in Selma ever took place.

Skip to the 1:33 mark:

I'll admit, I couldn't help but chuckling every time I heard "Selma" in the last few days thinking how Obama credited the march 50 years ago with his birth 54 years ago.

Hatuey · Mar 9, 2015

CanadaJohn said:
Actually, as I understand it, both Bush's marched in the front row for the entire reenactment. It seems crazy to suggest that they got their picture taken in the march but then they chose not to be there when the Times pic was taken. It's probable, as I stated previously, that for editorial bias the Times choose to use a pic that was more focused on the center of the march, those around President Obama, and not the broader shot I saw that had the Bush's in it.

I firmly believe that if the next President is Republican and has a similar photo op and the media doesn't include Obama on the periphery or even front and center, you'll be complaining about media bias. And I also firmly believe, as was evidenced in the past, President Bush had Bill Clinton front and center when he was invited and/or involved in such a public event and never once would have felt overshadowed. President Bush doesn't have to narcissistic gene that is prevalent in President Obama's makeup.

The reason I said it was interesting is because he took this very image.

Now compare it to this one:

In Picture 1, he cuts out Bush as well as one of Obama's daughters. With that said, what I think actually happened is that the press was at a specific distance from the crowd. That distance as well as the constrictions of the street, forced them to make the choice between having an image where the subjects (the crowd) would be harder to make out individually (but would include the Bushs) and a visually superior image (from a technical perspective).

Now, as one last piece to support this argument, look at the number of people separating the Obamas and Bush's in each image (specially pictures 2 and 3). At the distance the photographers seem to be at (no more than 50 feet) a lot of choices need to be made. You can use a wide angle lens and get more people in (as well as that ugly scaffold in the back). You can get closer and use a wide angle lens too, and maybe get the Bushs, but then you wouldn't really have a strong representation of the crowd behind the group and you'd also have a lot of volume distortition (vantage point sacrifice). You could also avoid the wide angle all together and shoot it from one side, but it wouldn't be as powerful an image (or for that matter net as much money). The reason I say all of this is because it wouldn't be the first time. Here is the famous image of the leaders at the Charlie Hebdo march:

As you can see, the image focuses on a specific number of people. However, the image cuts off quite a few other leaders. Including Queen Rania (Jordan), Togo's President and Canada's Steven Blaney who were also there:

Well, for the same reasons I just cited above.

Finally, There is also the possibility that the photographer didn't find the Bush's all that relevant to the story. Unless of course he was a speaker and had an important role throughout the march other than being there.

With that said, it seems like a technical choice and not any specific bias. That's just me though. I actually know a bit about photography. Unlike certain people who would make cockamamy theories about the Bushs going to get grits or something based on graphs.

pbrauer · Mar 9, 2015

tres borrachos said:
I'll admit, I couldn't help but chuckling every time I heard "Selma" in the last few days thinking how Obama credited the march 50 years ago with his birth 54 years ago.

What did he say that was wrong? He said his parents met in Selma and if they had not done so, he would haven't been born? What's so hard to understand about that?

tres borrachos · Mar 9, 2015

pbrauer said:
What did he say that was wrong? He said his parents met in Selma and if they had not done so, he would haven't been born? What's so hard to understand about that?

Selma happened almost 4 years after he was born. That's an interesting trick, his mother getting pregnant by a man she wouldn't meet for another4 years.

pbrauer · Mar 9, 2015

tres borrachos said:
Selma happened almost 4 years after he was born. That's an interesting trick, his mother getting pregnant by a man she wouldn't meet for another4 years.

:3oops::lamo Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking.

CanadaJohn · Mar 9, 2015

Hatuey said:
The reason I said it was interesting is because he took this very image.

Now compare it to this one:

Now compare it to this one:

In Picture 1, he cuts out Bush as well as one of Obama's daughters. With that said, what I think actually happened is that the press was at a specific distance from the crowd. That distance as well as the constrictions of the street, forced them to make the choice between having an image where the subjects (the crowd) would be harder to make out individually (but would include the Bushs) and a visually superior image (from a technical perspective).

Now, as one last piece to support this argument, look at the number of people separating the Obamas and Bush's in each image (specially pictures 2 and 3). At the distance the photographers seem to be at (no more than 50 feet) a lot of choices need to be made. You can use a wide angle lens and get more people in (as well as that ugly scaffold in the back). You can get closer and use a wide angle lens too, and maybe get the Bushs, but then you wouldn't really have a strong representation of the crowd behind the group and you'd also have a lot of volume distortition (vantage point sacrifice). You could also avoid the wide angle all together and shoot it from one side, but it wouldn't be as powerful an image (or for that matter net as much money). The reason I say all of this is because it wouldn't be the first time. Here is the famous image of the leaders at the Charlie Hebdo march:

As you can see, the image focuses on a specific number of people. However, the image cuts off quite a few other leaders. Including Queen Rania (Jordan), Togo's President and Canada's Steven Blaney who were also there:

Well, for the same reasons I just cited above.

Finally, There is also the possibility that the photographer didn't find the Bush's all that relevant to the story. Unless of course he was a speaker and had an important role throughout the march other than being there.

With that said, it seems like a technical choice and not any specific bias. That's just me though. I actually know a bit about photography. Unlike certain people who would make cockamamy theories about the Bushs going to get grits or something based on graphs.

Thanks for that - it's all fair comment. I'd guess, however, that the choice of picture is an editorial decision and not one made by the author of any accompanying story or the photographer him/herself. That's why the choice of picture one over picture two in your presentation above can open itself up to a decision based on bias. As I said, I don't think there was any cropping out of people, just a choice on subject composition desired.

As for President Bush's participation, I understood he was on the stage for the speeches, but I haven't been able to find any reference to him actually saying anything - perhaps he was just up there as an honored guest with no role - that happens all the time. Usually, though, I'd think Presidents in attendance would be given a role unless they specifically asked not to.

It's nothing I don't expect every day in today's media environment. It's why I like to read from newspapers and sites with alternate slants so I get a fuller picture of events.

NY Times Crops Bush Out Of Selma Picture, Highlights Ferguson

pbrauer

iguanaman

Grant

pbrauer

Peter Grimm

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Gringo allstar

SlevinKelevra

Sage

bubbabgone

bubbabgone

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

pbrauer

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Hatuey

Rule of Two

pbrauer

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

pbrauer

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative