Prescott's Design Blog

This isn’t a political blog, per se, but lately the US elections have been intruding upon the design profession. The latest drama surrounds a TV spot from the Hillary Clinton campaign in which the image of Barack Obama was altered to exaggerate his ethnic features.

The Daily Kos, a high-profile liberal blog, broke the story yesterday, but against the background of the primary elections in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, the media largely ignored it. However, I think this is certainly worth some attention because it’s dodgy with a capital D.

Here’s what happened: Hillary’s people took footage from a prior debate and altered the image very slightly. They made Obama’s skin darker and more grey, and they distorted the proportions of his face to seem wider and more square; basically, they made him more black! The tactic is simple: plant a subliminal message that Barack Obama is just another stupid black man. I don’t think I have to even say it, but some voters don’t like black folks and don’t want a black man to be President. These and other still-deciding voters will, subconsciously, view him as a threat because he’s not like them. It’s primordial and instinctive, and it’s a classic propaganda tactic. The racist past of American politics is thinly-veiled at best — just ask President Wilson who held Ku Klux Klan meetings in the White House!

To view the images and get a more inflammatory run-down, check out the post on The Daily Kos »

Altering images of political opponents is also nothing new. Remember those cartoons of Japanese Emperor Hirohito that were abundant during WWII? The Japs were made to seem almost inhuman, like some sort of gremlin rather than a man. Dehumanising the enemy is one of the first things taught to military recruits who eventually have no problem shooting at Huns, Krauts or Gooks (all of whom are not actually people).

In more recent times, opponents are usually seen in black-and-white and dimmed out during television spots. That way, when the candidate appears bright and full of life, it seems an obvious choice to rally around him (or her). Richard Nixon didn’t need any help from Photoshop when he “lost” the Presidential Debate in the Fall of 1960. Everyone listening on radio said Nixon had won, but those watching on telly threw their support behind John F. Kennedy who, unlike Nixon, appeared young and healthy and full of life. Of course, he was on about 7 different prescriptions at the time, but that’s neither here nor there.

The tools may be new, but the game is ancient. In politics, we will invoke our most biological and tribal instincts, we will dehumanise and vilify our opponents to the point of hatred, and now we have a new weapon: software. The good news is that the public at large is more aware of how computers and software can be used to manipulate images. With a world of bloggers out there ready to call out the spinsters, we tread lightly into our brave new world.