Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
March 2, 2009

Fair And Balanced


Can somebody please tell me what reason the Times had for giving Jindal this kind of random exposure upon Sebelius’s nomination today to head HHS and lead the Administration’s health care mission?

Gingrich NYT Mag.jpg

… I mean, a reason beyond some need to create equivalence between the Dems and the diminished GOP (the Sunday Magazine and the so-called “anti-Obama” as prominent case-in-point), or to play on celebrity politics, especially after Jindal bombed — and lied his way through — last week’s SOTU response?

(image 1: Bob Edmonds/AP. image 2: Nigel Parry for The New York Times)

  • moistenedbink

    Newt looks like Satan himself in that cover portrait. Good. For the life of me I can understand (except that Republicans and corporate cheerleaders own the media outlets) why disgraced and disgraceful people like Newt, Tom DeLay and Rove are still welcome guests on the airwaves. Please! If any trio needed to climb back under the rocks from which they came it is these three.

  • Alan

    Oooo – Bobby Jindal! He’s an up and coming superstar of the Republican Party! I know because it was all over the news, or at least it was until he gave his little performance last week. So why did the Times choose to use a photo of Sebelius with the new Palin? Maybe they’re contrasting a rising figure in the Democratic Party who’s about to take another step upward with one from the GOP who just took a very public stumble. Or maybe they’re trying to help Bobby recover by keeping him in the news in some form that isn’t related to his recent embarrassment. If you’re in the business of selling the news, you hate to see a sexy, young political stud turn into a laughing stock, at least not so quickly. But I’m not worried about Bobby Jindal. He’ll be OK, because he’s an American. And “Americans can do anything!”
    As for Newt, about the only magazine cover he should be on at this point is an AARP publication. He actually IS the anti-Obama. Barack is young, vital, relevant, and President of the United States. And Gingrich isn’t.

  • vcInCA

    here’s another reason why they might be giving jindal newstime: he’s young, thin, not white, and by all accounts, pretty smart, even if last week’s speech bombed. the newspapers might be learning that they should start paying attention to this genre of politicians–look what happened to the last one with these characteristics.
    as well, the generic ‘gop’ isn’t really taking obama on, and perhaps these newspapers want to appease multiple audiences w/ the same shot. for example, they can hook ppl who are focused on race with: “look, another older white person, admittedly female, being nominated to the white house. but look, there’s another person of color-this is a ‘change’” and they can interest people who are focused on age, just by contrasting the two, and they can interest people who are focused on party, by showing sebelius with a rising (or at least not quite crashing like so many of his party have recently) GOP presence.
    or maybe they’re super liberal (wishful thinking), and know that just by publishing jindal’s shot, they’re rubbing in how bad his talk last week was…

  • Rightwingsnarkle

    Ugh, more Matt Bai crap in the NYT mag.

  • Julie L

    That pic of Newt is really, really creepy. Calls to mind a mafioso/pedophile psychiatrist or some such, wringing his hands and saying “now… what was it you wanted?” before laying his perv hands on you.

  • Rima

    Newt Gingrich as performed by Anthony Hopkins in the guise of Hannibal Lecter.

  • DennisQ

    Newt’s a has-been. He’s good for television appearances because unlike most Republicans he’s an original thinker. However, the Contract With America blitzkrieg is the sort of ambush that can happen only once. Is there a reason to go with Newt over say, Mitt Romney? Well, yes. But neither of these choices has much appeal.

Refresh Archives

Random Notes