Althouse: "George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march."

March 9, 2015

"George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march."

"US newspaper accused of 'liberal bias' after using image of Selma anniversary march on front page showing Barack and Michelle Obama, but with George and Laura Bush missing."

59 comments:

Larry J said...: All the News that Fits Our Views!; 3/9/15, 8:10 AM
amie lalune said...: "Accused!" Ya think?; 3/9/15, 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Note that the Cops with dogs and Batons in Selma worked for Democrats.; 3/9/15, 8:18 AM
Jaq said...: It's irrational hatred. Wait 'til ARM shows up spitting snot about the mention of his name.; 3/9/15, 8:19 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Maybe they'll have a journalistic reason for it, but that looks like active bad faith toward W. Civility bullshit strikes again.; 3/9/15, 8:21 AM
phantommut said...: The hate runs deep.; 3/9/15, 8:22 AM
wendybar said...: Not part of their Lying agenda of Whites hating blacks.; 3/9/15, 8:25 AM
TreeJoe said...: They know how to disagree with a GWB policy, make fun of him, etc.

But they don't know how to process a former president they strongly disagree with when he shows humility, does good works in his post-presidency, and is not seeking to promote himself.

So they edit him out rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance.; 3/9/15, 8:25 AM
LuAnn Zieman said...: Other blogs have wondered if perhaps George W. was cropped out because Bill and Hillary were absent. Why weren't they there?; 3/9/15, 8:28 AM
MisterBuddwing said...: Having seen both photos, I suppose the photo editor could make a case that the uncropped version looks too "spread out," and that the cropped version looks more focused. And maybe the editor just flat-out didn't recognize the Bushes in the crowd of people.

But yes, the optics are horrible.; 3/9/15, 8:32 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Really a punk move but airbrushing events is what liberals do.; 3/9/15, 8:34 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Yes, as The Cracker says above. Airbrushing is what Progressives always do.; 3/9/15, 8:43 AM
Fernandinande said...: This picture just like the rest of the NYT.; 3/9/15, 8:49 AM
Phil 314 said...: My hunch is it was more about centering Obama in the picture.; 3/9/15, 8:51 AM
chickelit said...: I returned, and saw under the sun, that the swift is not yet to the race, nor the battlespace to the strong, neither yet brood to the wise, nor yet understanding to men of riches, nor yet favor to men of skull; but time and chance happeneth to them all.; 3/9/15, 8:51 AM
dbp said...: I'm sure the editors at the NYT had no idea GWB was even in the picture. They were only concerned with making sure their lord, President O***a (pbuh), was centered in the image.; 3/9/15, 8:55 AM
dbp said...: Phil 3:14 beat me to it. Great minds, etc.; 3/9/15, 8:57 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Phil is probably right. Obama is the center of NYT thoughts, hopes, projections. The photo represents the racial healing he has brought to the nation. This is all they needed for validation that his is a successful presidency.; 3/9/15, 8:58 AM
Brando said...: There's no better way to advance the cause of civil rights than to tell half the country that they have no part in it because they're completely racist.; 3/9/15, 9:00 AM
Rae said...: As was recently said about the optics of the current Clinton scandal - the most damaging controversies are those that reinforce preexisting perceptions.

Here, yeah I can think of a photographic composition reason to crop the photo. But I think it's far more likely they didn't want to present W in a good light. Particularly when HRC wasn't there. It's always politics at the NYT.; 3/9/15, 9:00 AM
Bryan C said...: I also think the intent was to put President Obama in middle of the crop. That was a poor decision. This is not Obama's event, and if you have a photo that requires a wide layout to accurately portray the subjects of the photo, you use a wide layout. But it's not necessarily malicious.

Then again, the NYT has a history of malicious and petty behavior and doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt. So it's fair game.; 3/9/15, 9:03 AM
Hagar said...: It would be interesting to know the backstory.
My guess is that the organizers invited the former presidents without checking with the White House first, and the White House let Billy Jeff and Carter know their presence would not be required, but could not very well cancel the Bush's invitation (I think I saw or heard that George Sr. was there too).
But they could and did arrange the front row and relied on the MSM to make it clear that Obama was the hero of the day.; 3/9/15, 9:08 AM
CWJ said...: Hard to tell. But is it that old fraud, John Conyers, peering around Obama's left shoulder in the in-house photo?

He's done so much for Detroit after something like 50 years in Congress.; 3/9/15, 9:11 AM
Moose said...: How very Soviet of them...; 3/9/15, 9:11 AM
CWJ said...: "In-town" not in-house. Autocorrect, sorry.; 3/9/15, 9:16 AM
Hagar said...: I think that is Sharpton.; 3/9/15, 9:32 AM
Hagar said...: The Bushes would not be there without an invite, and if the Bushes were invitedf, so were the Clintons and Carters.; 3/9/15, 9:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: The absence of Clinton I and hopeful Clinton II was not noticeable, so long as Bush II was erased.

All in a day's work at Pravada/NYT office.; 3/9/15, 10:03 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: The NYT biased? No kidding! I'm shocked.; 3/9/15, 10:09 AM
Steve said...: Nikolai Yezhov; 3/9/15, 10:21 AM
Paul said...: Well how can you blame the Democrats?

Stalin did the same thing with Leon Trotsky? Cropped him out of a lot of pictures.

So nothing new here.; 3/9/15, 10:24 AM
MAJMike said...: Heh.

The NYT is our Ministry of Truth.; 3/9/15, 10:32 AM
CWJ said...: Hagar, You're right. That could be Sharpton. But I'm still not sure. I had not noticed the superficial resemblance between the two before now.

Was Sharpton mentioned as being there? I only looked at the photos.; 3/9/15, 10:49 AM
pious agnostic said...: I doubt that Hillary would have been able to cross the bridge unaided; her walker would have been plainly visible to any camera, and her Darpa exo-suit isn't ready yet for field testing.

I'm not a robot, but....; 3/9/15, 10:53 AM
David said...: I think the crop is defensible. To show the Bushes and keep the photo at the same size, it was necessary to eliminate part of the Obama family, who are strung out to the left of the photo. I can see why the editor might wish to leave in the entire family, to the exclusion of the Bushes, without making a censorship judgment.

To me the more interesting thing is that President and Mrs. Bush were willing to march without being assured of being front and center. There may have even been a preliminary plan, given the security issues.

Why were no Clintons there? First, they are generally in hiding this week, but their decision on attendance was made long ago. Clintons don't do much of anything unless they are the center of attention.; 3/9/15, 10:53 AM
Big Mike said...: There are newspapers to whom I'd give the benefit of doubt, but the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post are not among them.; 3/9/15, 10:54 AM
David said...: mr may be right that Hillary doesn't do walking very well. She looks unhealthy.; 3/9/15, 10:54 AM
Curious George said...: "LuAnn Zieman said...
Other blogs have wondered if perhaps George W. was cropped out because Bill and Hillary were absent. Why weren't they there?"

I guess they did feel noways tired.; 3/9/15, 10:57 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Hey, just where were the Clintons, anyway?!; 3/9/15, 10:58 AM
Hagar said...: Small, petty, and forever campaigning for himself.; 3/9/15, 11:05 AM
FleetUSA said...: Libs have no interest in healing; 3/9/15, 11:10 AM
Tom said...: This makes sense now. It wasn't that the NYT were airbrushing out Bush. But, by removing Bush, they removed the need to mention that Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't in Selma. Bill and Hillary were in Miami partying with the band, Pussy Riot.; 3/9/15, 11:16 AM
MadisonMan said...: Hey, just where were the Clintons, anyway?!

Fundraising is my guess.; 3/9/15, 11:18 AM
pious agnostic said...: Hillary was probably just chilling in her meditation chamber on her Star Destroyer.; 3/9/15, 11:32 AM
jr565 said...: yup the repubs are racist. They didn't bother sending anybody? Oh, they did. Well let's bury thet u dear the rug.
Hey where's bill and Hillary? The first black president didn't attend? Well, let's bury Thet under the rug too.; 3/9/15, 11:36 AM
Jaq said...: The thing is that so many people still feel that reading the NYT or the Boston Globe, or the WaPo makes them informed.; 3/9/15, 11:50 AM
Rob said...: Hillary Clinton did commemorate Bloody Sunday eight years ago, when she adopted the verbal equivalent of blackface.; 3/9/15, 11:54 AM
Brown Hornet said...: Like many other mental illnesses, Bush Derangement Syndrome is often a chronic, lifetime condition.; 3/9/15, 2:41 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: David said...
mr may be right that Hillary doesn't do walking very well. She looks unhealthy.

I think you mean "doesn't she look tired?"; 3/9/15, 3:11 PM
Matt Sablan said...: As it is, the picture they picked is kind of awkward [it is really hard to make out people besides the center.]

Zooming out even further, I don't think I would recognize either Bush without a caption telling me to look for them. From having worked in publications, I think it was an odd choice, but I don't know what other pictures they had to work with [or maybe if the picture looks clearer on the actual newspaper instead of the image of the paper.]; 3/9/15, 3:15 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I actually like the bridge picture better [with the Obamas on one side, the Bushes on the other.] I can immediately pick out both sets, and it is a lot more interesting and dynamic [it doesn't feel as posed as the original picture.] It may not be a good picture for the front page though.; 3/9/15, 3:26 PM
readering said...: The NY Times public editor has explained that there was no cropping. The Times published the photo it received from the photographer. The photographer eliminated the Bushes because that part of the photo was overexposed due to those marchers being in the sunlight, while the Obama side was in the shade. Pity. It would have looked good to see a bipartisan photo.; 3/9/15, 3:29 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Readering: Aren't there uncropped versions of the image floating around? Maybe they're different photos than the chosen one taken roughly at the same time/place?; 3/9/15, 3:31 PM
ken in tx said...: Just one more thing we have to learn about our own country and our own media by reading British Newspapers.; 3/9/15, 4:26 PM
Bryant Likes said...: The photographer responded to the question here on Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/george-w-bush-not-cropped-selma-nytimes-115896.html.

"he was not in that frame because he was so far to our right"

Does anyone else see the humor in saying Bush was too far to the right to include in the photo? :); 3/9/15, 4:42 PM
Michael K said...: "My hunch is it was more about centering Obama in the picture."

I will hazard a guess that Obama did not want the Bushes anywhere near him. No companionable relationship with the source of all evil for the light bringer.

The rest was easy.; 3/9/15, 5:32 PM
Jaq said...: It would have looked good to see a bipartisan photo.

Sure. These things always have a good explanation and they always break one way.; 3/9/15, 6:28 PM
Doug said...: Hillary! didn't go to Selma - she doesn't need the black vote. She's got a vagina, so ... WINNER!; 3/9/15, 6:53 PM
RecChief said...: Petty.; 3/9/15, 7:55 PM