<p>Some people’s eyes just don’t photograph well. </p>
<p>When Dan Quayle was criticized for having a “deer caught in the headlights” look a few times, it was professionally explained that blue eyes sometimes photograph that way. I know MB doesn’t have blue eyes, but I’m just offering that some people’s eyes just don’t record/photo well.</p>
<p>My H has blue eyes that are a crapshoot in pics. We have a few “deer caught in headlights” pics that we all laugh over. In real life he doesn’t look like that at all. </p>
<p>And, I agree that women in politics, etc, are likely getting “eye work” done so they’re eyes are probably “changed” and may not photo well.</p>
<p>I know that I’ve seen MB a few times when I barely recognize her. I don’t know if it’s a makeup change, hair change, lighting, or what.</p>
<p>Look how Cindy McCain got pilloried for the crime of being slender, blonde and attractive. That made her “fake.” WhatEVER. She looked like any well-kept-up wealthy woman to me.</p>
<p>H and I were watching an interview with Gov Christie, in which he appeared very articulate and well spoken, and commented on how it was terrible that the opposition made fun of his weight with a “throw your weight around” TV ad that showed him obviously panting / struggling to get in or out of a car. I cannot stand that kind of nonsense, from either side. We need to be better than that.</p>
<p>Did you know that smiling in pictures makes your eyes smaller. So the trick is, smile just enough so you don’t look depressed, then your eyes will look closer to normal.</p>
<p>My Mom wore those colored pantsuits with shells as well. My Mom would not let us buy anything that was cotton and needed to be ironed. I remember growing up I thought permanent press was a word everyone was familar with.</p>
<p>Another trick photographers who take portraits do is to put you in a position so you aren’t looking straight on at the camera. Your body is tilted ever so slightly so even if your face appears to be looking straight ahead it has a different look and tends to project better. </p>
<p>True about the smiling too hard thing. It’s usually not as flattering. </p>
<p>A slight facial angle is usually more flattering on film. You won’t see that in candid shots, but posed shots do look better, generally.</p>
<p>I’ve been a little worried about Hillary lately. She looks more tired than usual.</p>
<p>Went to the doctor today and read the Newsweek article on Bachman. It’s actually more offensive than the cover! Does this actually pass for journalism these days???</p>
<p>Newsweek is pretty far gone these days. It’s very frustrating, because I don’t really feel like I have good reasonably-neutral sources. I’ve liked some Huffington Post in the past, but they are too tabloid-y for my taste and their science reporting is abysmal and filled with all kinds of woo. Where is there a true neutral, good, reliable source?</p>
<p>For years we took the local paper plus the NY Times. Then we finally got so turned off by the partisanship of the Times that we dropped it and added the WSJ. Then we missed the Times so added it back. Then decided we were killing too many trees and spending too much on papers so dropped the local but then missed the local so we ended up taking all three – the local, the NY Times and the WSJ. </p>
<p>Only take the Economist for magazines so we are frugal there.</p>
<p>I would recommend taking both the WSJ and NY Times. It is really instructive.</p>
<p>Posted this earlier, but for some reason the post is gone. I’ve met Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi at political fundraisers. I was struck by the fact that Hillary Clinton was much more attractive in person than she appears in photos or on tv. Nancy Pelosi was also quite attractive. Neither her hair nor her face were frozen. She was quite animated the day I saw her. I was surprised by how small she is–I’m 5’7" and I was looking down at her–even though she was wearing really high heels. </p>
<p>I watched Michelle Bachman on Meet the Press yesterday and I think she’s just got strange eyes. I think the media focuses more on the way women candidates look than they do for men. While men aren’t immune, it seems to me that women get far more scrutiny related to their looks.</p>
<p>“I would recommend taking both the WSJ and NY Times. It is really instructive.”</p>
<p>The WSJ is a Murdoch publication. Do you find Fox News informative? Same animal.<br>
Try Wapo or the Guardian if you want a less liberal news source.</p>
<p>I don’t need a neutral source to read news or watch TV. I just keep the switch in my brain in the “on” position. Most of the reporting bias is so obvious that it doesn’t take much to filter it out. </p>
<p>If someone makes a logical argument supported by facts, I am willing to consider it on its merits. If someone makes an illogical argument that willfully ignores facts, I move on.</p>
<p>I always thought my brain on “on” would detect bias. Then I read an op ed about the bias involved in deciding what to report. The example was Israeli/Palestinian conflict. One media outlet might choose to report the Israeli deaths. The other might choose to focus on the one Palestinian child who was killed, totally omitting mention of anyone else. It’s hard to detect things that* aren’t *reported.</p>
<p>^ Agreed. Which is why reading a variety of sources is helpful. Even blatantly biased sources. </p>
<p>The one type of bias that is very hard to overcome is the bias that gives greater media attention to big flashy events that are considered newsworthy.</p>
<p>No Murdoch has mostly kept his hands off WSJ. It has a decidedly conservative editorial posture, but its reporting of the news is reasonably even.</p>
<p>I try for a balance of sources from which to draw my own conclusions. So I subscribe to the LA Times, WSJ, and the local paper, plus I listen to NPR while driving.</p>