Beautiful People, Ugly Story

Once again I’ll qualify this post by stating that I don’t endorse every post that appears at Château Heartiste, and his comments section is rather too full of Jew-hatred for my liking, but he makes a good observation here:

Something I’ve noticed, and which has been increasingly evident of late, is the leftoid legacy media’s penchant for leading off their lifestyle and culture stories with un-captioned and unidentified stock photos of attractive people intended to mislead readers into assuming the photo is of the author[s] or of the people covered in the article.

The example CH links to is a piece showing romantic love between siblings in a positive light.  Incest, basically.  Here is the photo used to illustrate the article:

Now do you really believe that photo is of 40 year old “Melissa” and her 45 year old brother “Brian”?  Probably not, but anyone reading the article would have their initial take skewed by that image, which is the intention of course.  Roissy puts it a little more bluntly than that:

This stock photo snow job is legacy media SOP now, and the purpose is to fool the reader about the ugliness of the author[s] or of the people interviewed for the article, for if readers fully grasped that almost all feminist-friendly and shitlib-gratifying culture and lifestyle stories were written by warpigs, about warpigs, then there might be fewer credulous readers lapping up the legacy media’s runny gruel.

Polyamory stories are a classic case of the stock photo snow job, in which one will often see a good-looking couple at the header of the article, only to discover upon further investigation that the featured polyamorists are all physically as well as mentally repulsive.

You’ll find once you are aware of this practice you’ll start seeing it everywhere.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!

15 thoughts on “Beautiful People, Ugly Story

  1. I used to run a jobs-orientated ‘newspaper’ (which was basically wall-to-wall ads although I had to drop any editorial linked to employment — pensions, trends, that sort of thing — as the chairman of the group thought the product should be all ads, so he won) but whenever we wanted an image we were reliant on stock photos. As virtually all ads feature either actors or stock photos, it shouldn’t be a surprise that most if not all of the media has to resort to them too.

    But the ones I had access to always looked like stock photos, whatever we did. Smooth, young, clean, properly-combed people and, if US-centric (which was again almost all of them) full of American style cops, firefighters, check-shirted lumberjacks and so on. Hardly anyone from Barnsley, as I used to say.

    Trouble is, and I say this as a paid-up member of the human race, people are not very appealing generally if not actually ugly bastards. It isn’t just make-up and kind lighting, but shape and size too. This is often apparent to those who love looking at girl-on-girl action on pron channels; they are often disappointed to find in RL the average lesbian is less than desirable. In the same way I usually think the incest lot are people who can’t find anyone else but happen to be related.

    You could also say that Hollywood has a lot to answer for in showing how people are. Stock photos are merely the still version of the ongoing pretence.

    By the way on the matter of looks, I noted that Al-Beeb was running a TV show called “muslims like us” (clever title for even the BBC knows they are not like the majority of the rest of us at all, which is why they follow a different path) and while I won’t watch it I did catch the ads and showed very nice looking followers of the one-true faith. Again, they look nothing like the scraggy and baggy I have seen in Rotherham. I hate to say it, but I bet these people were carefully chosen lest we think they are less-than-attractive wretches who inhabit a less-than-appealing religion.

  2. The photos often unconsciously reflect the bias of the author too. For example, BBC articles about ‘obesity’ (and there are many, many of them) will feature a fat white working class male holding a pint of lager. I estimate 95% use this photo, and a tiny few use one of a fat white working class woman instead.

    I cannot ever recall them using a photo of a fat black female, for example, even though they are hardly unknown.

    But the greatest of all was an article about “junk food and obesity” which had a photo of two stick thin white working class youths outside a McDonalds. Wonderful. I bet the author didn’t even see the contradiction.

  3. Rob,

    But the greatest of all was an article about “junk food and obesity” which had a photo of two stick thin white working class youths outside a McDonalds. Wonderful. I bet the author didn’t even see the contradiction.

    Ah yes, I remember that one! I think the Internet was unimpressed.

  4. Yes, I’ve seen this happening. I’ve a post at 16:30 today which includes a genuine photo of me, so I’ve learnt my lesson putting George Clooney in instead.

  5. I recall firing off a Mr Angry email to the Torygraph for illustrating an article on violence in inner city schools with a picture of white suburban schoolkids. And an article about high achievers with a picture of black kids. In the same issue.

  6. RlJ,

    I bet that stood about as much chance of being published as the one from the Gary Glitter Fan Club.

  7. @A Rob: One of the issues with the media, sadly much unspotted, is that every ‘important’ news story needs a picture these days. The lame stream TV channels don’t really report anything much unless they have accompanying pictures (even library footage will do, though they are sometimes bailed out by cell-phone footage these days) and the press always needs a photo. No piccy, no coverage — a situation made worse by the need to have the picture in colour.

    I recall the famously tired (and oft-regurgitated story from years gone by whereby the ‘red tops’ would run as a filler the “man bites head off parrot for £10 bet in pub” story at the foot of a column. Naturally, as the man, the pub nor even the parrot would be named, there was no picture. I expect today the picture would be of a pint and ten pound note, just to make the story ‘real.’

  8. The best thing about the trend for needing pictures, in Australia at least, is that they now seem to have to caption the photo such that they don’t mislead the dopey punter “reading” the article that what they see is not related to the article. It leads to some quite funny descriptions. And a lot of disclosure of source – with Getty being frequent.

  9. Talking of the Torygraph, has anyone else noticed that the annual article celebrating the ever-rising (Ha!) exam results, is always always always illustrated by pictures of attractive school-girls.

    Boys don’t take exams, apparently.

    This does more damage than just deceiving the readers; think what it does for expectations and ambition amongst the non-featured gender.

  10. @Peter McFarlane: sorry to bang on about the world of the press and related meedja but you are right. The principle in all published imagery is that men look at women and women look at women. Showing males draws less attention, and every headline and picture in any publication has to fight for attention. Young women probably, rightly or wrongly, draw more pairs of eyes. test with hidden cameras have shown over the years that both men and women’s eyes are drawn more to pictures of female, beauty — which is more likely to come with younger (but not too young) females — and of course the similarity of race. Thus papers like the Torygraph, which I would think has more white than PoC readers, probably shows more white females. Al-Beeb however would prefer to show hijab-clad females smiling over exam results to really drive it home to us white scum that Allah has inspired them a lot.

    In many ways the papers (and for that matter, tele) are the antithesis of art galleries. You aren’t expected to browse and admire; you are expected to be grabbed and held or — if possible — re-educated.

Comments are closed.