A reader from Virginia e-mails: “On the Washington Post’s online discussion, I had the following exchange with Joseph Elbert, their Assistant Managing Editor, Photography. At least he recognized that he was ignoring the question:”

Dunn Loring, Va.: When covering a story with political implications, how does The Post decide which pictures to print? For example, in the mass of stories yesterday on the immigrration march, all of the pictures shared one common theme, happy latinos waving US flags, but from what I saw observing the march, there were plenty of Salvadorean, Mexican and other flags, as well as signs for amnesty and denouncing U.S. policies. Why weren’t both sides of the march shown? Is it an editorial decision or do your photographers just not take pictures of actions that do not conform to The Post’s positions?

Joseph Elbert: My personal favorite photo was the lead of Style by Lucian Perkins. It went beyond a political agenda and captured a moment. I checked out quite a few left and right blogs and saw a few boring sign pictures but nothing that did anything more than advance someone’s personal agenda. To be honest the part I hate most about being in Washington is the demonstrations. Everyone comes here to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I don’t think I did a very good job of answering your question.

No, Mr. Elbert, you didn’t.

If you’d like to try your luck at getting a direct answer, try here.

P.S. I didn’t find the blogosphere’s coverage of the illegal alien marches “boring” at all.

Which reveals something about Elbert’s own personal agenda, doesn’t it?

comments (0)   trackbacks (4)