McCain’s adopted daughter, infamously smeared as “black, illegitimate” by the Bush factor in 2000, has been missing from the McCain campaign, and now disappears from a People cover of the Bush family, as it sits on magazine racks.

I can only speculate why Bridget might not have been featured on the stump, but as a former editor on several national magazines (including as a senior editor) I can attest that it’s no accident Bridget’s image may be hidden on a magazine rack.

I can assure you that every element of a cover is carefully planned, thought out, and calculated.
The photography session of major celebrities (such as the McCain family) would likely have been overseen by an art director (or editor, or both.) In any case, the photographer would have presented a wide range of poses and shots from which the editorial staff could choose.

In the case of a powerful celebrity (or political) “get” such as the McCain family, the celebrity or politician often also has contractual approval of the cover image.

National magazines live and die by their covers, publishers and editors are well aware what sells, and what will or will not appear on the cover when situated on a magazine rack.

I can assure you Bridget’s lower corner pose, so that she is sometimes hidden by the magazine rack, is no accident: it was a calculated decision by either the publisher, editor-in-chief, the McCain campaign, or collusion of all of the above.

Although that’s not my area of expertise, I doubt that Bridget’s virtual disappearance (even as an image) from McCain events is an accident, either.

UPDATE: a comment from the Shakesville thread with more corraborating detail.

<<Mr Furious (not Todd)
YES! Finally a topic where I can speak with some authority and no risk of privilege (crosses fingers).

I have been a magazine art director for 15 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty that that was a deliberate decision by the magazine. Nothing gets more attention than the cover, and there are a host of people that weigh in on even the tiniest of details.

For each and every cover, the prioritization and placement of text and every important element takes into account the newsstand rack, the mailing label, you name it. Nothing is placed anywhere without a reason and careful consideration.

The art director, editor and photographer determined that the MEET THE McCAINS copy could afford to be placed low because PEOPLE get prominent placement and is often unobstructed, and in racks where it is, Cindy and John McCain are instantly recognizable.

But the decision to place Bridget that far down is simply awful. There is no reason to compose the shot with ANYONE sitting that much lower than anyone else, but the fact that they chose HER, and the reasons why is the heinous part. It is straight-up racism. The fact that she is blocked on some racks is a bonus to them for their decision to isolate her from the family to start with.

As someone mentioned upthread, she is posed as if she is the family dog.

There is no reason she should not be placed one "head" higher. The only possible reason I can rationalize (not support) is that the decision was in part to give prominence to the chest of the woman (Meaghan?) directly behind her. But that is not sufficient. If that was an element that they wanted to feature, they simply would have moved her slightly to the right and made sure Bridget was off to the left.

judybrowni is right that this was probably one of dozens of shots taken, and probably multiple arrangements of the subjects, but I can think of not reason why any of them would have included putting an adult (again, ANY OF THEM) on a foot-high riser.
reply edit reblog flag /people/a0bb9fa26fc574543d3a90d88e2d5d8c/

0 0 votes
Article Rating