How did this get to be about me?

By Barry Ginter

Appeal Editor

I hadn't intended to revisit the alleged conspiracy I wrote about in last week's column (let's just call it the Appeal-anti-Hillary-campaign-manifested-through-use-of-uncomplimentary-photographs-gate), but, to my surprise, that column drew more comments than any in recent memory.

From a quantity standpoint, the majority of the calls and e-mails could be lumped into the category of suggesting the woman who canceled her subscription because of a picture of Hillary she viewed as uncomplimentary should "get a life." But not all of them.

In fact a few women said they'd perceived that the Appeal had run these type of photos of not only Hillary, but other female candidates in the past to the point where it seemed like a conscious decision on our part.

Another said she'd witnessed such efforts in person at another newspaper: "I agree it was a terrible picture, so bad indeed that I felt the newsroom and the editor were having some slanted fun at her expense, or Democrats' expense, by putting it in the paper alongside other very charming photos. I once worked at a newspaper and digs were done in any way possible, including unflattering pictures and comments. But to be fair to you, it might have just been a 'guy' thing and you were really obtuse to print that."

I can say unequivocally that there is no such effort on our part to take these backhanded digs at candidates - our page designers simply use the freshest photographs sent by the Associated Press. But the reaction has been useful in reminding us as a staff that everything we do is watched closely. We'll endeavor to use the best of the candidate photographs they send, but it will always be a judgment call.

Several of the calls and e-mails were humorous. There was one e-mail, for example, from a gentleman, clearly not pro-Clinton, that included many photographs of Hillary that would put her supporters on the war path.

"Try using one of these photos of Hillary and see what kind of reaction you get from that disgruntled lady," said the writer.

I think not.

However, the most unexpected turn occurred from those people who brought my own photograph into the discussion. They told me in various ways it wasn't a good photo, which I already knew (but there's only so much a photographer can do). I'm still not sure what their point was in sharing that view, but maybe they were supporting me ... if I'm willing to run such a poor picture of myself, how could I be faulted for running the non-smiling photo of Hillary.

I'm one of those columnists who would just as soon have no picture at all, but as a reader I know I much prefer to look into the eyes of the person speaking to me from a column. So I don't object to having a photograph, as painful as it may be.

I can only recall a small number of photographs of myself that I consider to be complimentary ... one was as I was running the last 100 yards of a marathon and another was at the end of an exhausting day in the Canadian wilderness in awful weather; in both you could see the exultation of perseverance.

None of the "good photos" is a posed "mugshot." The first one I used at the Appeal compelled many people to comment that it made me look like a teenager, and a co-worker to comment, based on the color of my sweater, that I looked like a "bluebarry," (after which I made sure the photo ran only in black and white).

Then there was the most recent photograph (well, the one before the photo on today's column). It was a complete surprise to me when the new mugshot, taken months ago, appeared on the column as part of an overall effort to update all of the photos of our columnists. It caused a few people to comment that they liked it, (even though I knew they were just being charitable), and one newsroom employee to say it made me look like a member of the high school chess club.

I decided that feedback wasn't enough to make me cancel my subscription, nor to pull rank and have another photo taken, since there are probably lots of other columnists who don't like their mugshots. Finally, I rationalized that, even though I think it's awful, maybe it's just my misperception issue again ... after all, the photographer took several photos and, theoretically, picked out the best one. People who are photographically challenged (Hillary and me, apparently) are usually just happy when their photos don't scare small children.

I could live with it.

Then that call came that made me reconsider. The caller said it was his perception that my picture made me look arrogant and condescending. Now, those aren't traits I believe I possess in large quantity, nor that the editor of the newspaper should have, and I don't want a mugshot that says I do. Honestly, I wasn't thinking condescending thoughts when it was taken (I was thinking "please don't make me look stupid.")

So that's why there's a different picture today and evermore. I hope it hints at no arrogance. I made sure not to wear a bright blue sweater and, to ensure it would convey a different expression, I was thinking of something different when the shutter clicked: "oh pretty please don't make me look stupid."

In the end, if I've failed, just do what I do: Don't look at it.

• Barry Ginter is editor of the Appeal. You can reach him at 881-1221, or via e-mail at bginter@nevadaappeal.com.