Political campaign photography is a relatively understudied phenomenon.  Other genres of contemporary photography (fashion, sports, war, etc) have received most of the sustained interest.  Scholars of political communication have taken passing interest in pictures or images in media coverage but the emphasis tends to be on television.  It is rare when the popular media turn inward to scrutinize their own image making.   When that does happen it is often to dispute the facts allegedly pictured within the frame, as would be the case with an ‘altered’ photograph.  Implicit in these sorts of complaints is a naive belief that, prior to the alteration, whatever appeared in the photograph was the truth.  In this view, the alteration is the deviation from that truth, or put more succinctly, the lie.

What are the typical cases of photographic manipulation within the context of political campaigns?  They tend to be tepid revelations about the way the candidate’s appearance has been spruced up to lighten shadows, erase wrinkles, or otherwise artificially (i.e. photographically) improve facial features.  Once in a great while there is an instance of cropping a photograph to the advantage of a candidate, or utilizing Photoshop to insert the candidate in circumstances, or among other individuals, to gain advantage, but these kinds of cut-and-paste efforts tend to be very ineffective, if for no other reason than the nature of public life.  Most of our public arenas are so well documented that questions about a candidate’s presence or absence can be independently verified.