A Picture Worth Less Than A Thousand Words
The big political news today, at CBSNews.com and many other outlets, is that there might be photos of President Bush and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Together. Possibly Shaking Hands And Everything.
Why is it such a big deal that there are, according to Washingtonian and Time magazines, "about a half-dozen" photos showing the pair together? Well, actually, it's probably not. To explain why, let me begin by quoting someone I wouldn't normally: White House counselor Dan Bartlett. (This isn't a knock on Bartlett specifically – it's just a title like that is essentially a flashing neon sign warning of disingenuousness.)
Here's Bartlett's spin, which for once rings true:
"I don't think that would be fair to jump to any conclusions just because the president took a picture with somebody. People understand that the president of the United States goes to events like these all the time in which there will be people who get their pictures with the president."The events about which Bartlett speaks are the countless functions that take place at the White House and other venues; according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, "the president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events." I'm not sure exactly how much "tens upon thousands" is, but the guy does take a hell of a lot of photos. Hell, he hosted 26 Christmas parties alone this year. There aren't photos taken at every one of these, of course, but a quick pause, awkward handshake, and weary smile from the president in the direction of a camera can be is one of the easiest, cheapest, and most effective ways to reward an ally. He or she gets a picture with good buddy Dubya to put on the office wall to show off access and power; Bush, in turn, locks up another "pioneer" for the next election cycle. For a president, pausing for a few thousand pictures is a no brainer.
So is it really a surprise that the man who until recently was the most well connected lobbyist in Washington seems to have scored a few photos with Bush? Not to anyone with even the slightest grasp of how Washington works. But that doesn't mean these relatively innocuous photos won't be used for less than innocuous purposes. As the CBSNews.com story noted, "the hunt for the photos" has been on since the scandal broke, since they provide visual evidence of a connection between the highest office in the land and the biggest Washington scandal in recent memory. The fact that the president has taken scores of other photos – let's call that the context, shall we? – is already getting lost in the shuffle.
Now, before you think I'm getting all Tim Graham on you, let me point out that this isn't a "liberal media" issue. If the president were a Democrat, the hunt for the photo would still have gone on in earnest. Woodward and Bernstein worshipping reporters salivate about the prospect of uncovering scandal in the White House, not by virtue of their political leanings (most of the time, anyway) but because of the prestige and career advancement that comes with it.
As for Abramoff's ties to Bush, it does seem likely that there's more there than just a few harmless photos: "The Washingtonian magazine reports that Abramoff says not only did the president know him, but Mr. Bush knew details about his family, his twin children, even their names." (Scott McClellan claims the president does not know Abramoff and doesn't recall having met him.) If that turns out to be the case, the pictures, when they inevitably surface, will serve as "proof" of the relationship. They aren't, really, but since images can be much more damning than detailed, unconfirmed reports on backroom dealings, expect to see the photos popping up all over the place.
No one who's talking now yet knows the true nature of the relationship. But the breathless coverage of the photos' alleged existence – it was the lead video on the CBSNews.com homepage this morning, and the story got its own little box on the upper right section of the page – is dispiriting. The real story, if it exists, is unlikely to come with photographic evidence. Behind the scenes wheeling and dealings almost never do. It's possible that there is no such story; it's also possible that Bush and Abramoff are more connected than anyone would reasonably have thought. (The White House has been somewhat vague regarding the extent of Abramoff's connection to the president or other administration officials.) But no matter how it all shakes out, the fact that the press seems to eager to latch onto the photos, despite their relative insignificance, suggests its lust for scandal has outpaced its responsibility to its subjects and customers. It's time like this that the president's legendary distrust of the media, which is usually so easy to dismiss as misguided, starts to seem that much more justified.