Ever since ancient times, leaders and rulers have tried to control how they are perceived. Ancient pharaohs would put painters to death for portraying them with even the slightest blemish. But now, even though that has softened, the tendency to edit the public's view of their leaders still goes on. Many people know about the White House Press Corps. But I don't think too many Americans are aware of the job of the president's personal photographer. His job, since he is paid directly by the White House, is to portray the administration in, shall we say, a more filtered light than the president would get in a normal press conference. For instance, the press during Roosevelt's time was barred from ever seeing him in his wheelchair. In fact, only one photo of him in his chair survives.
And these days, it's gotten even worse. Since the advent of television and the internet, the so-called "Average Day at the White House" series has chronicled the President's "day-to-day life". But even these specials are carefully edited and rehearsed. For instance, in 1990, in one special, it was reported that a scene with Barbara Bush simply delivering letters to the President had to be reshot fifteen times because the filmmaker didn't think the way she said, "Hi, George," was natural enough. Under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, presidential filtering has reached new heights. I'm sure we all remember the "Mission Accomplished" statement with George W. Bush dressed in Army fatigues, or perhaps the scene with Obama sitting on the bus that Rosa Parks sat on; it was later discovered that he only invited his personal White House photographer to photograph him in the bus.
The question I want to ask you, is do you think it is appropriate for presidents and world leaders in general, to constantly try to control and present an image to the public, or are we being fed an image, and not who the person really is, or what they believe?
No comments:
Post a Comment