In recent months our country has witnessed one of the most heated battles over the democratic candidacy in American history. The historical impact of this campaign has generated an amazing amount of press coverage. We are living in the dawn of a new era in American society; for the first time in our country’s history we are seeing two breakthroughs in equality. This of course is brought about by democratic candidates Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. This is the first time our country has seen an African American male candidate and Caucasian female as frontrunners for the presidency. The media in our country has turned this monumental accomplishment in human equality into a complete circus. They have emphasized every negative aspect in both campaigns often focusing specifically on race. For this reason, I have decided to look for propaganda in recent campaign images.
In every winning election there is great propaganda produced by both those who support the candidate and those who oppose the candidate. Because there is such a rivalry between the democratic candidates, this election has produced an overwhelming amount of propaganda. I will focus on one media source that has made up their corporate mind on who their publication will support in the next presidential election. This magazine has been on the cutting edge of music, pop-culture, and political debate since it was first published in 1967. Since Rolling Stone (RS) was first printed, it has focused on music and politics in the U.S. The magazine is not solely an entertainment magazine but has helped shape political coverage that we experience today. As a forerunner in the political debate, RS’s opinion has a huge influence on the political climate. The magazine’s campaign support is very important and almost crucial to getting ahead in the election. That is why I have chosen to focus on their images and cartoon propaganda for this paper. All the images I have chosen come directly from the pages of RS.
RS has turned their focus and support to Senator Obama. Every recent issue for the duration of 13 months, has included either an article in support of Obama or an article bashing Senator Clinton. These articles have not only pinpointed their support through the use of writing, they have produced some propaganda images as well. Because images are often more powerful and reach more people on a subconscious level, it is important to take a close look at what the magazine is presenting through visual persuasion. For this assignment I have chosen two example images to evaluate. One is a RS cover featuring Obama and the other is a RS cartoon of Clinton. Both images, as well as the article’s content, tell the same story: America needs Obama and Clinton is corrupt and dishonest.
In the angelic image of Obama on the RS cover viewers are able to see the great lengths RS has taken to create pro-Obama propaganda.
Context:
This image came from the cover of the March 20, 2008 edition of RS. The image is accompanied by the article’s heading “Barack Obama, A New Hope.” This article highlights Obama’s campaign strategy and why the author feels Obama is the only person who can help our country in the future. I chose this image because of its angelic feel and the importance it holds to the future of Obama’s campaign. The image is an obvious piece of propaganda in favor of Obama for president.
History:
At this point in the primary, Obama is in a tight race for the democratic candidacy. In light of the recent bad press associated with Rev. Jeremiah right the pressure on Obama from the media has greatly increased. For the past 20 years Wright has been Obama’s pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. According to an ABC Online News article published on March 13, 2008 “Wright has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”” (ABC news.com) Rev. Wright’s remarks were the catalyst for a heated debate about Obama’s intentions and religious values. One week later RS conveniently published this article which praised his hope for our future.
Personal Reaction:
I find the cover to be comical. I can’t really take it serious. It screams “PROPAGANDA, PROPAGANDA!” Unfortunately it may be viewed as the truth, causing it to be more powerful than the information in the article. I imagine people standing in line at a checkout stand or looking for a magazine in the magazine isle. People then see the cover and pick up a copy. They read the words “Barack Obama, A New Hope” while taking in his god-like image as a man. They are instantly swayed and they don’t even read the article or look into why he is a new hope. They only remember “Obama” and “hope” causing them to vote without substance or knowledge of the candidates. This is what’s wrong with propaganda; it persuades people’s emotions and actions. They never have to put any effort into finding out if they are right or wrong.
Technical: Lighting and Framing
This image is photo-shopped to the point where the original photo would be unrecognizable. The creative geniuses behind this photo created a bright light which places an angelic presence on the head and shoulders of Obama. His face is lit very well with a soft light coming from in front of his face. The key light is diffused allowing his face to be well lit but not washed-out. Behind Obama and slightly over his head is an extremely bright light that whips around his back and shoulders. This light causes his neck and shoulders to shine as though he is emitting this power from his god-like presence. The shot is framed at a medium shot in an up-close focus. The image shows him from the mid-stomach up. His body is slightly left of centered but the focus is close, causing him to take up most of the cover. There is only one shadow. It is an attached shadow on the bottom of his chin. Other than that there are no shadows, this adds to his angelic presence. The Image fades from extremely bright at the top to a very dark blue at the bottom. This shows the light is coming from above, as if God is blessing or ordaining him as president. Obama looks past the audience and into the future. He has a strong stern look on his face as if he is pondering the future of America.
Meanings:
Let’s start with his clothing. Obama is dressed in a professional suit and tie. His jacket is a navy blue, his shirt is white with a red tie. These colors make up the American flag, a symbol for freedom, capitalism and democracy. By wearing these colors he is representing American freedom. Although it is not shown in the picture, the audience can tell he has his hands placed on his hips by the way his elbows are bent. This is the ultimate jester in an authoritative stance. By placing his hands at his hips he stands strong and proud, the fundamental element of power. He is standing as someone who is strong enough to be president of the U. S. The background of the photo is a very light blue. This resembles blue skies developing ideas of peace and tranquility to the audience. They see the blue sky and feel as though everything is safe and perfect. The sun is shying and there are no clouds in the future. There is a bright white light breaking around his head and shoulders. This holds a couple of meanings. One is that he is a god-like figure. The image looks as though Obama is in fact a god who is emitting this lighting –like power from his sheer presence. The other could be a blessing from God. This could be viewed as God’s power and favor being bestowed upon him. It is as though God is forecasting him as our savior. His eyes create lexical lines which transcend the audience, causing them to feel as though he it looking past them and into the future of the country. The words “A New Hope” create ideas in the audiences’ head which assure them that Obama will be the one to save them.
Ethical, Cultural, and Critical:
Because RS is a privately owned entertainment magazine I can’t find anything ethically wrong with the cover. I do however question their motives. I am less likely to trust the opinions presented in the article. If the magazine is willing to go to such great lengths to make Obama look like a god I have a hard time believing anything in the magazine. I see their work as bias; therefore I don’t feel I can trust the content. Culturally I think that the image plays to the young audience of the magazine. The flash and shock value aid in persuading younger adults into supporting Obama or at least buying the issue. Critically I find this piece of propaganda amazingly effective. This image totally works for what the magazine wants it to. This image works both to show support of the candidate as well as draw people into buying the issue. It is amazing what society can and will do to sell a product.
Context:
This cartoon accompanies an article in RS titled “The New Nixon; Hillary has taken her strategy straight out of Tricky Dick’s paranoid, press-bashing playbook.” The article ran in the February 7, 2008 edition. The article ran just after the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada.
History:
The debate took place shortly after Obama’s win in Iowa, which proved to be a major win for the Senator. In the article Clinton is belittled and chastised for using a strategy of press bashing, similar to President Richard Nixon’s. Clinton and her strategists blamed the media for her loss in Iowa and the magazine took it to heart. This caused them to write the article and accompanied it with an image of pure anti-Clinton propaganda. This is not at all out of the ordinary for RS which has littered the magazine with many different anti-Clinton propaganda images throughout the primary.
Personal Reaction:
My initial reaction to the photo is very similar to that of the Obama cover. I find it comical and entertaining. I find this image to be funny in a different way than that of the Obama picture, in that, this one is meaning to be funny. It is poking fun at her strategy by comparing her to Nixon, the ultimate insult. The artist took that idea and created an image that exaggerates both of their physical qualities.
Technical: Lighting and Framing
The artists drew this picture with the key light coming from the right of Clinton. This is seen as the light is brighter on her right. Clinton is drawn at a waist shot from a medium focus. There are some attached shadows under her chin going down her left arm. This suggests there is some sort of diffused light coming from overhead. The drawing frames her in the center but leaves little headroom, creating a claustrophobic feeling to viewers.
Meanings:
This photo contains a large number of meanings which aid the drawing in its pursuit of anti-Clinton propaganda. Starting with the face, viewers notice her black swollen eyes. These give an untrustworthy aspect to the character. Because her eyes are black and swollen, viewers see her as an evil other, on drugs, or lacking sleep for some reason. She is also scowling at whoever’s out of the picture. Her eyes point off camera causing the audience to wonder who she despises. Next Clinton is drawn with a huge nose and large chubby cheeks. These are understood by the American audience as facial characteristics of Nixon. This is how the artist has decided to draw a parallel to the ex-president. From her cheeks she is dripping sweat or drool, depending on your interpretation. This could mean she is sweating over her hatred for the press or she could be seen as drooling fool. Her shoulders are hunched in poor posture unlike the proud and upright way Obama is presented. At the bottom of the drawing her hands are clinched tightly not crossed together as seen in pictures of powerful characters. This shows the audience she is tense or nervous and not in control. The drawing makes Clinton seem as though she is an ugly powerless character, full of contempt. These are not characteristics of someone who should be president.
Ethical, Cultural, and Critical:
Ethically this photo falls under the same protection as the Obama photo. Although it presents Clinton in a very dark and negative light, it is protected under the First Amendment. Though I don’t exactly agree with the article or the drawing, it does not break any ethical guidelines of the magazine or they would not have printed it. It does, however make use of American culture by combining exaggerated facial qualities of two U.S. politicians. Here the audience sees the lighter side of American culture, where we are completely free to poke fun at our leaders. Critically, I think that it is a skewed, yet funny, way to view Clinton and her campaign strategy. I also feel it is a little harsh to compare her campaign to one of the biggest presidential flops in American history.
