In terms of man-hours, this week's cover image wasn't that big a deal (the same wasn't true of the story itself, which took hours for our reporters to compile and me to lay out in print and post online).
Ethically, there are some interesting issues at play.
When dealing with election coverage, things get... complicated. After some debate in the office, is was decided we would run as many of the candidates' photos as we could manage to get. For some, this meant running file photos; others provided images or agreed to meet us for a shoot. The result is that some photos were better than others.
My preference would have been to bring each candidate into the office, where we can regulate the quality of the images to insure a level playing field. Unfortunately, we had neither the clout nor the resources. What we were able to do is keep each image at relatively the same size, avoiding giving prominence to any one over the other.
As for the cover, I didn't sweat it as much. The goal here was simple to show the range and diversity of the candidates, not to squeeze as many on as possible. Without their names attached, the photos can't unfairly impact your vote — a good reason not to include photos on the ballot.
Overall, the candidates' images should serve to lend them a sense of humanity. The Nixon-Kennedy debate aside, looks should not play a role in your vote — unless you still believe in Physiognomy
No comments:
Post a Comment