Loading...

Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"? - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"?, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"?
link : Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"?

Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"?

That's what a photographer named Peter Duke purport to show here:



The video has gotten enough attention to get this push-back at HuffPo: "No, ‘60 Minutes’ Didn’t Purposely Make Steve Bannon Look Like A ‘Bleary-Eyed Drunk’/News experts rejected the color-coordinated conspiracy theory."

The video lays out the evidence very persuasively, I think. So what's the refutation at HuffPo?

1. A “60 Minutes” spokesman says: “It’s nonsense.”

2. A journalism professor says: “The tendency [of heightened color saturation] is to make people look better... When I saw the interview, I actually thought he looked better. They smoothed over his skin.”

And that's it!* I think HuffPo is conceding that the color was heightened, and the "No" in the headline relates only to the inference about why it was heightened. What do you think? The video makes it clear that the color saturation on Bannon was much higher than on the interviewer (Charlie Rose). If it's just to make people look better, why isn't it the same for both men? And how could you possibly think the dark red lines on Bannon's eyelids look good?

___________________

* There is a third thing that I could put on that list. HuffPo tells us that Peter Duke's online portfolio of photographs includes some pro-Trump material. Should that count? I wonder what are the politics of the “60 Minutes” spokesman and the journalism professor. We're not told.

___________________

ADDED: Clicking around in Duke's online portfolio, I see that he's amused by abusive email he's received as a result of a NYT article about him: "The Annie Leibovitz of the Alt-Right." Excerpt:

“I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but a lot of people don’t read,” [Duke] told me over beers and pasta. “They look at the pictures.” He’s somewhat mystical on the topic of images; he believes that his photographs operate on a hypnotic level, an idea he picked up from Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” who predicted that Trump would win the election over a year in advance and has been cashing in on his bet ever since...

Duke believes in the primacy of visual culture, and most right-wing figures, he says, don’t take enough care to make themselves look good. Newt Gingrich, he tells me, is “disheveled”; Steve Bannon is a “schlub”; Trump’s hair is “problematic.” At the same time, he thinks left-leaning media outlets — which is to say, just about anything other than Breitbart News and The Drudge Report — go out of their way to present the right in a negative way. Recently, he drew my attention to New York magazine’s March cover story on Kellyanne Conway. Though he hadn’t read the article, Duke was bothered by Martin Schoeller’s clinically lit portrait, “the equivalent of being rendered by a fax machine,” he griped in an email....

That's what a photographer named Peter Duke purport to show here:



The video has gotten enough attention to get this push-back at HuffPo: "No, ‘60 Minutes’ Didn’t Purposely Make Steve Bannon Look Like A ‘Bleary-Eyed Drunk’/News experts rejected the color-coordinated conspiracy theory."

The video lays out the evidence very persuasively, I think. So what's the refutation at HuffPo?

1. A “60 Minutes” spokesman says: “It’s nonsense.”

2. A journalism professor says: “The tendency [of heightened color saturation] is to make people look better... When I saw the interview, I actually thought he looked better. They smoothed over his skin.”

And that's it!* I think HuffPo is conceding that the color was heightened, and the "No" in the headline relates only to the inference about why it was heightened. What do you think? The video makes it clear that the color saturation on Bannon was much higher than on the interviewer (Charlie Rose). If it's just to make people look better, why isn't it the same for both men? And how could you possibly think the dark red lines on Bannon's eyelids look good?

___________________

* There is a third thing that I could put on that list. HuffPo tells us that Peter Duke's online portfolio of photographs includes some pro-Trump material. Should that count? I wonder what are the politics of the “60 Minutes” spokesman and the journalism professor.

Loading...

We're not told.

___________________

ADDED: Clicking around in Duke's online portfolio, I see that he's amused by abusive email he's received as a result of a NYT article about him: "The Annie Leibovitz of the Alt-Right." Excerpt:

“I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but a lot of people don’t read,” [Duke] told me over beers and pasta. “They look at the pictures.” He’s somewhat mystical on the topic of images; he believes that his photographs operate on a hypnotic level, an idea he picked up from Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” who predicted that Trump would win the election over a year in advance and has been cashing in on his bet ever since...

Duke believes in the primacy of visual culture, and most right-wing figures, he says, don’t take enough care to make themselves look good. Newt Gingrich, he tells me, is “disheveled”; Steve Bannon is a “schlub”; Trump’s hair is “problematic.” At the same time, he thinks left-leaning media outlets — which is to say, just about anything other than Breitbart News and The Drudge Report — go out of their way to present the right in a negative way. Recently, he drew my attention to New York magazine’s March cover story on Kellyanne Conway. Though he hadn’t read the article, Duke was bothered by Martin Schoeller’s clinically lit portrait, “the equivalent of being rendered by a fax machine,” he griped in an email....

Thus articles Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"?

that is all articles Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Did "60 Minutes" heighten the color on Steve Bannon to make him "look like a bleary-eyed drunk"? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/09/did-60-minutes-heighten-color-on-steve.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: