Media Treatment 101
Is the Media Playing Favorites?

To some, these photos say it all - Obama and his wife Michelle
(left and right)
portrayed as "messiahs" bathed in light and a halo,
while Hillary has Satan looking over her shoulder.
Click thumbnails to see larger views.

Media spin - whether by the media or the candidates themselves - is an increasingly important but subtle influence nudging voters this way one day, the other way tomorrow.

While media endorsements are the public tip of the iceberg, more hidden aspects lie in the ownership of that particular media, its own private interests and agenda, its somewhat-related record of contributions (not from the media corporation itself, but from the individual owners, various spin-offs and the "527" groups), and the various interests and ideologies of the top corporate executives.

It's interesting that the New York Times endorsed John McCain for the Republican nomination, yet published a poorly-researched "expose'" filled with innuendo and not much else, hinting that he may have been "romantically involved" with a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. Had they chosen to, they could have found a lot more documentation than they printed.

Saturday Night Live carried a facetious (some would say "fawning" episode) pampering Barack Obama ("would you like another pillow?").

Hillary Clinton quickly lashed out at the media, "whining" that she was getting the raw end of the stick while the news media was "falling in the tank" for Obama. Just as quickly, the media reacted - intimidated or perhaps embarrassed at her accusations, and, within hours promptly set upon Obama like a pack of mad dogs.

Now understand this - the press has no hesitation about selecting the worst or most embarrassing photos of candidates they don't like, and sometimes - as in the case of O.J. Simpson - even alter photographs to make their "target" look more sinister and more evil.

The three photos above are prime examples. At first glance, the Obama photo which graced Time magazine would seem to be a doctored photo ... and yet it's quite possible that he was actually photographed from behind, looking into a bright light, perhaps one of the media's own floodlights.

The photos of Hillary and Michelle Obama were taken with what appears natural backgrounds. In other words, Hillary was standing in front of a grinning devil, and Michelle was standing in front of a halo-looking graphic backdrop. In both cases, maybe all three, the candidates most likely had no control over the backdrops and certainly no control over the photographers' "creativity" in framing the shots as they did.

Personally, if I were still an editor/publisher, I would prohibit such not-too-subliminal photos and the responses they are bound to create. As a photographer, I have often gone the extra mile to get that "perfect shot" framed just right. But in every one of these three examples, the photo structure and/or cropping create a partisan emotional reaction in the reader which is totally out of place in any news story. I would insist on more "neutral" photos than what these examples show.

And yet, sometimes there are photo situations in which the candidates or their supporters, beam out a subliminal message of their own that can be quite disturbing.

For example, take a look at the photo at the right. I don't know what events these were taken at, but it is clearly two different events because both Bill and Chelsea are dressed differently. Look at Bill's suit and Chelsea's dress.

Why is Chelsea Clinton wearing an upside-down crucifix necklace - quite legitimately interpreted as a Satanic symbol?

And why, in God's name, are the stars of the United States flag upside down, in a similar Satanic Pentagram message?

If you have a flag, take a look at it. The stars do not look like this! This is no accident. Someone intended a clear message here. Was it Satanic? Or an expression of political dissent? Something like the clandestine hand signals American POWs would flash in photos to show they were being forced under duress to denounce their country? Was it a right-winger's attempt to mimic the "upside-down flag" symbol that is an international distress signal?

Surely, during the Clinton years, a number of those most opposed to the Clinton dynasty did exactly that, to let the world know their feelings that the U.S. was in a period of grave danger and distress.

Then, there are the "secret hand signals" that have been seen from many national and world leaders - the hand with only the index and pinky fingers extended, in a well-known sub-cultural signal of "Satanic solidarity" - much like that secret Masonic handshake. It is also sub-culturally regarded as something a bit more insulting than just flipping someone your middle finger, something George W. Bush and other pissed-off politicians have been photographed doing (see video below).

We've seen that on George H.W. Bush the Elder, Barbara Bush, George Bush the Younger, Bill Clinton, Queen Elizabeth and dozens of others. When called on it, one of the Bushes just said it was a symbol of solidarity with the University of Texas football team.

Yet I doubt the Queen of England can lay claim to that excuse, or Bill Clinton ... any more than the Clintons could claim the upside down stars and upside-down crucifix is a symbol of their "solidarity" with our soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Few presidents in history have damaged themselves - without the help of the news media - as much as George W. Bush.

So what we have is a case of both media manipulation and what appears to be subliminal messages (or idiocy) on the part of the politicians themselves, which can be interpreted in some pretty sinister ways. Many conservatives say the "Satanic hand signal" is a sign of the power of the New World Order - the Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.

It is certainly legitimate to ask if the (controlled) news media is using improper techniques to favor or damage a candidate, depending on their own personal agenda.

Who really won the Texas primary?

Probably the most blatant example I've seen this election has to do with the news media's patently false statement that Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary, when - in fact - she did not. The media has repeated this lie so many times that we now take it for granted, but in fact, we have only been given about 85% of the Texas primary results. The caucus results have been ignored.

In the regular primary, Clinton won 65 delegates to Obama's 61 - BUT, in the caucuses, Obama won 38 delegates to Hillary's 29 ... giving Obama a total of 99 and Clinton 94. SOURCE: BarackObama.com.

If the New York Giants beat the Patriots 99-94, would the media claim the Patriots the winner????

This has to be the worst media "mistake" since flip-flopping on the 2000 Florida election.

What's wrong with the pre-election polls?

I have another question, which may or may not involve the media directly. Why, in this election, are the polls so far off? A media conglomerate operates one of the largest election-reporting operations in the country. How do 3-point Obama leads suddenly and without explanation turn into double-digit Hillary victories?

Could it be the electronic voting, which many experts have claimed for years is open to hacking and corruption? It has so far happened in New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas.

Nationally syndicated talk show host and author Thom Hartmann's must-read essay with, the above title is at www.AlterNet.org. In it, he identifies problems associated with computerized voting, addresses issues from previous elections and ponders future dilemmas.

A bad computer chip can misread votes. Without a paper trail, there is no backup. Hartmann's examples of this are "just the tip of the iceberg of irregularities, as reported by www.votewatch.us. In '00 and '02, the system was either broken ... hacked, or voters became more fickle than at any time since Truman beat Dewey."

A noteworthy case concerns the head of an electronic voting machine company who left his job to run for the U.S. Senate in 1996. According to his company's computer-controlled voting machines, Chuck Hagel won almost every demographic group, including blacks that normally vote Democratic. Hagel became the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska. Six years later, he repeated his stunning victory with 83% of the vote. Machines built and programmed by Hagel's company tallied the votes. His company also manufactures the computer chip. To his Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, "This is a big story, bigger than Watergate ever was." See www.lancastercountydemocrats.org/matulka.htm.

With electronic and Internet voting, hackers gaining access to the database is always a problem. Yet, the Pentagon plans to use Internet voting for GIs overseas in 2004. As Hartmann suggests, "the results could be disastrous: even the CIA has not been able to prevent hackers from penetrating parts of its computer systems attached to the Internet."

Fallout from Election 2000 includes the exit of exit-polling, the statewide consolidation of voter rolls and the purging of voters based on bogus felons' lists. In Florida, Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who was also chairman of the Florida campaign to elect George W. Bush, spent millions to "clean up" the Florida list. More than 94,000 voters were erroneously purged. About half of the purged voters were black Democrats.

(SOURCE: The Dish, August 22, 2003)