March 9 / / Blogging

History and Agenda Setting via Selma Photo

Updated 3/9/2015 – adding content from NYT photo editor and photographer

Former Congressman and Colonel Allen West seems to have a problem with the way a photographer, and the New York Times captured the history of this past weekend’s 50th Anniversary of the infamous Selma “Bloody Sunday” events. Other conservatives are jumping on the bandwagon and bashing the NYT as well.

Col West says his blog post entitled: “Continuing to divide America, NY Times crops front page of Selma to leave out George W. Bush“:

Here is the front page of The New York Times. Don’t excuse them for this, this was obviously very intentional. They have covered crowds in pictures for years. This was strategic to suit the current regime’s agenda.

Above that front page tweet from the NYT, West included a tweeted photo from WSB-TV in Atlanta with a different photo, showing a much broader view of the line-up of dignitaries and VIPs waiting to reenact the Bloody Sunday march.

There are two different issues to tackle in order to make a fair assessment as a reader whether a nefarious bias exists in the agenda for running the photo as was presented.

Issue 1: Making the image

The image was taken by NTY Photog Doug Mills. He tweeted several images from the site, including this one:

Update: 

from this piece, Photo Editor Michelle McNally related:

Mr. Mills wrote that he never sent the photo desk a photograph he took that included the Bushes, and his reasons were technical ones.

Since I have spent many years in the field as a photojournalist, I will offer my insights into how the image was probably made and the factors that Mr. Mills and other photographers had to consider. This will, I hope, fill in some of the blanks that photographers have to deal with in such situations.

First, take a look at the WSB-TV photo of the full line-up of dignitaries. Please notice the light intensity on Former President and First Lady Bush. They are in bright sunlight, but facing at a 90 degree or so angle away from the sunlight. This creates a high contrast situation. You can see blown out highlights on Mrs. Bush’s face, as well as the former president’s collar. The contrast in the light to dark areas of the photo are already a challenge just in that section.

Now look to the left of that photo, where President and First Lady Obama stand with more dignitaries for the day. Comparing their fully shaded area of the photo, we can see that there is yet more loss of light – I’d estimate another full stop or more from the shaded side of Pres. Bush’s face – that is going to affect exposure.

The WSB-TV photog did an admirable job in a tough lighting situation. President Bush is fairly well exposed, despite the blown out highlights. His face is recognizable with decent tonality. Unfortunately, setting the exposure for that level of lighting bumps the shaded end of the photograph into under-exposure.

Is this photo impossible to expose properly? No. But to render it properly, it will need post-processing manipulation.

Update: The NYT piece about the photo provides this quote from Photographer Mills

Just so you know … at the time the photo was taken, I was using a 70-200 long zoom lens. I also had a remote camera with a wide-angle lens attached to the side of the truck that took a photo at the just about the exact moment as the tighter one. As you can see, Bush was in the bright sunlight. I did not even send this frame because it’s very wide and super busy and Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade.

RAW vs JPG

If I were to work on adjusting the WSB-TV image, I would hope that the original image is saved in RAW format. This format saves all of the available data. Camera sensors typically have multiple sets of pixels – Red, Green and Blue – creating three or more “channels” of information that can be saved. In the process of converting the image to a JPG file format, the camera will apply settings from the user (things like white balance, contrast, sharpness, etc). Once the jpg file is rendered (whether in camera or in post-processing) the remaining information on the RGB channels is trashed. So, having the RAW file, with all of that information allows for more post-processing adjustment. That allows for more information in dark shadow areas and over-exposed highlight areas of the image to be salvaged.

However, many photojournalists, making images in the field, on deadline, don’t save in RAW format. Many go straight to JPG. So, one question I’d have is, does such a full width of the march image exist from the NYT coverage of the event, and is it available in RAW format?

If the image were saved in camera as a JPG file, I’m not sure that saving the exposure and creating a good image of both Presidents would be possible. One end or the other would suffer. We can see that the shadows in the Obama end of the WSB-TV photo are heavy and under exposed, creating poor contrast and low detail in that section of the image. Adjust the image for that end, and the highlights in the Bush end of the photo will wash out even more. There is just no good way to process a JPG of that image for both ends of the contrast spectrum.

RAW may help enhance the image in post processing – but is the image worth the time? Will the image be usable as a prime example of the event? Or, will it be a mushy, over ‘Shopped image with obvious post-processing to save it? Is there any value in running that type of overly processed image? This brings us to the second part of the photojournalist’s thought process:

Issue 2: News Value

Some might confuse news value and agenda setting as concepts. I’ll admit that they do overlap some, but not totally. When a photographer is in the field, the news value of the images is something they keep in mind.

One series of questions that has come up is that no Republicans went to the Selma Anniversary event. The presence of the Bushes, as well as other GOPers, shows that to be a false assertion. However, is that the primary news value of the event? That a GOP President was at the event? That two presidents from opposite parties were present? Yes, there is some news value there, but is that the dominate news value?

President Bush’s administrative legacy has little to do with civil rights. As far as I can tell, the former president was not present at any of the three attempts to cross the bridge by marchers in the spring of 1965. His news value is solely as a former president being in attendance.

President Obama’s presence, however, does have news value beyond being the current president, and a democrat to bookend the Bush republican bipartisanship. Mr. Obama has one quality of high news value that Mr. Bush doesn’t have. The historical precedent of being the first African-American elected (twice) to the highest office of the nation. This makes the sacrifices of those beaten throughout the civil rights movements, especially those on Bloody Sunday, significant.

The news value of two presidents at the event is good. The news value of the first African American President of the United States standing with John Conyers and his fellow marchers on the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, which ultimately led to President Johnson signing the 1965 Voting Rights act is higher, in my opinion than two presidents being there. Without the legal and civil rights changes arising from that era, that removed racial barriers to elected office in our national culture, Mr. Obama would not be president now. There is a large dose of news value in his presence at this event.

Update: McNally adds:

“Technically, it’s a bad picture, and he didn’t even send it,” she said. President Bush “was totally overexposed,” she said. The photograph that was published is compositionally strong and “it has impact.”

Were I photographing that line up of dignitaries, I’d be cursing under my breath that the two presidents were not positioned closer together. The lighting on the Bushes, along with the sheer width of the line makes getting both presidents in the same image challenging to say the least.

Also, I’d be well aware of the news value of our nation’s first African-American to hold the office of President standing with the marchers from that day 50 years ago. As photo editor looking at the photos of the day, I’d tune into the historical significance of Mr. Obama’s presidency in light of the Voting Rights act.

I cannot honestly agree with Col. West on this one. Either for the photographer, or the editorial decision as setting an agenda that “suit[s] the regime’s agenda.” There is an overriding news value to cover it the way they did.

Had the two presidents been closer, and in similar lighting, perhaps I might see more of an agenda. Here, I don’t.

CategoriesBlogging Journalism Photography

TagsAgenda Setting Allen West Photo Selma