This article was downloaded by: [Merel Bas]

On: 24 June 2014, At: 08:34

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

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