President Donald J. Trump has restricted journalistic access to the White House in ways no other modern president has, seldom holding public press conferences and limiting the number of on-camera press briefings by White House spokespeople, in addition to publicly castigating the news media as the enemy. The Trump administration clearly prefers to operate away from the interrogating gaze of the news media. As Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Ed O’Keefe wrote on June 19, 2017, “Trump even refuses to acknowledge to the public that he plays golf during his frequent weekend visits to his private golf courses.”1 The nonprofit government transparency organization, the Sunlight Foundation, summarized the Trump administration’s first six months: “This is a secretive administration, allergic to transparency, ethically compromised, and hostile to the essential role that journalism plays in a democracy.”
Photojournalists have seen their access curtailed as well, both during the campaign and since Trump took office. They have been excluded from documenting meetings with foreign dignitaries and other representatives; they are restricted from photographing at Trump’s many clubs; and they are limited from where they can photograph at the President’s public appearances. In one extreme case, photojournalist Christopher Morris was body-slammed for trying to leave the press pen while photographing a campaign event.
Such restrictions require photojournalists to rethink the way they cover this president. They are outsiders now, and they should embrace this status. One approach can be gleaned from the paparazzi, those uninvited celebrity photographers who monitor the daily activities of the famous. This chapter builds on a previous journal article of mine, “On the Function of the United States Paparazzi: Mosquito Swarm or Watchdogs of Celebrity Image Control and Power?,”2 where I argued for the need to reimagine the paparazzi less as invaders of privacy and more as photographers who challenge the manicured images of the powerful. This would position photojournalists as visual fact-checkers, providing evidence of how and where the President spends his time and with whom he meets. Fact-checking, the journalistic practice of testing the veracity of statements made by politicians, has taken on new significance during the Trump administration. No previous president has uttered as many falsehoods, according to leading fact-checking sites like PolitiFact and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker. This testing can be extended to photographic coverage of the White House. Before examining several exemplars demonstrating a paparazzi approach to political photography, I will briefly discuss the nature of political news photographs.
Photography plays an important role in shaping our understanding of politicians. This is especially true for the President of the United States, a person who exists for most people only through media representations. Photographs of presidents inform our sense of who they are and what they stand for. These pictures also tell us about more intangible qualities, such as leadership and authenticity, success and failure. It has become essential that presidents control how and when they are seen, leading to an increase in the size and importance of the staff devoted to managing a president’s communication strategy.
News photographers have the task of documenting the president’s daily schedule, including speeches, meetings with dignitaries, press conferences, and other official duties. They also try to provide audiences with more personal, behind-the-scenes views of the president at work. Ultimately, as Associated Press photojournalist Evan Vucci said in a July/August 2012 News Photographer article: “The job of a photojournalist is to cut through all of this, and to find something that’s ‘real.’ A real moment that isn’t scripted, or a real moment that gives viewers an idea of who the candidate really is.” In essence, it is the job of political photojournalists to push beyond an image a politician presents in order to reveal the more authentic person, regardless of whether it is positive or negative.
Photographs of politicians can be deconstructed along two continua: power—whether the content and look of the photograph are determined more by the politician or by the photographer; and location—whether the event being documented occurs in a public setting or in a private, behind-the-scenes one. The power dimension emphasizes that a photograph results from an interaction between photographer and subject, ultimately shaped by who is able to exert more control. On one end of this continuum is a subject who is unaware of being photographed. In this situation, the photographer has almost complete power over how the subject is portrayed. On the other end is a situation where the subject takes a selfie or hires a photographer. In this case, the subject controls the photographic moment and the resulting images. Most photographs reflect competing or negotiated amounts of power.
To gain control, politicians attempt to shape the nature of coverage by creating events—photo ops—that when photographed by journalists will amplify the desired message. The independence of journalists imbues the recorded events with a veneer of authenticity and objectivity. The politician’s communication staff predetermines locations, lighting, backdrops, and the angles from which events will be photographed. Depending on the importance of the politician, news outlets feel both journalistic and competitive pressures to cover photo ops, as media scholar Kiku Adatto has argued in her book Picture Perfect: Life in the Age of the Photo Op (2008). In the case of a president, almost everything he or she does is by definition newsworthy and must be documented. Of course, staging the perfect event does not mean a president will appear positively. Awkward moments and gaffes can occur despite the best planning. Reagan was a master of appearing dignified and presidential at such events. Trump, on the other hand, seems uncomfortable posing for photographs, often having an odd expression, such as his broad smile when posing with the Pope, or being photographed pretending to drive a truck. In addition to shaping the nature of public appearances, presidents also exert their authority by establishing rules, both formal and informal, about how photojournalists conduct themselves. Photographers face the threat of denial of access for violating rules.
The second dimension for understanding political photographs is the location in which the photograph is made, public or private, or in the language of sociologist Erving Goffman, in his classic 1956 work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, the front- or backstage. The frontstage or public region is where we present our polished selves for an intended audience, knowing we will be seen and judged. The backstage or private area is where characteristics that might contradict the desired image are kept hidden. Politicians often try to blur the line between public and private, frontstage and back, by providing access to a highly polished version of behind-the-scenes activities to reveal a seemingly unposed, “real” person at work. These two dimensions—power and location—suggest that photojournalists should not just document politicians as they desire to be seen in public, but also attempt to push backstage, reasserting greater control of the photographic interaction.
Most news photographs of presidents are made at planned, highly controlled events held in public. Yet, in politics, it is backstage where the work of government happens, the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, out of sight of the press and the public. It is backstage where presidents potentially reveal aspects of themselves at odds with their more public personae. The paparazzi offer one approach for how photojournalists can push backstage in order to provide citizens with an alternative to controlled situations. The paparazzi are photographers who focus on making candid photographs and videos of celebrities, emphasizing everyday activities or activities the celebrities would prefer to keep secret. They seek the opposite of the glamor imagery of red carpets and other star-studded events. The resulting photographs challenge the polished images presented by celebrities. Underlying all paparazzi images is surveillance, monitoring those in power, looking for mismatches between frontstage and back, public and private.
Such an approach was actually anticipated well before the first paparazzi in the 1950s by one photojournalist, who brought audiences into the hidden world of politics. German photographer Erich Salomon documented Europe’s political elite throughout the 1930s, as they negotiated treaties, discussed policies, and attended galas. He would gain access to these events through guile, subterfuge, and charm, armed with a small, unobtrusive camera. The photographs provided the public with a sense of how Europe’s future was being shaped and how politicians behaved out of sight of the public. Politicians and diplomats were shown engaged, exhausted, or bored. If he could not gain access, Salomon would photograph through windows. As photography historian Mary Warner Marien (2006) states in her book, Photography: A Cultural History, “Salomon’s work … implied the importance of the public’s right to see behind the scenes of important political events.”
A behind-the-scenes view of politics provides citizens with a more complicated and nuanced sense of how government works and of the people involved. The lessons of the paparazzi and Salomon in challenging the public images crafted by the powerful speak to the need for contemporary political photojournalists to circumvent restrictions placed on them by the Trump administration and to continuously monitor the activities of the White House. Despite the restrictions photographers currently face, a few examples of political paparazzi have emerged, produced by professional photojournalists, and at times, by citizen journalists and actual paparazzi.
Although Trump criticized then-President Obama for golfing too much or at what Trump felt was inappropriate times, the Trump administration has restricted journalists from photographing President Trump on the golf courses of his clubs. When he golfed with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and two professional golfers in February 2017, journalists were limited to a room whose doors had garbage bags taped over the windows. Associated Press reporter Jill Colvin and Bloomberg News reporter Jill Jacobs both tweeted photographs of this situation. In April 2017, CNN producer Kevin Liptak posted two photographs of the President golfing despite the White House again blocking the press pool from documenting Trump golfing.
Even when denied access, photojournalists can monitor activities in the White House from a distance, providing valuable information to citizens. Photographs that ran in the New York Times and the Washington Post in early May 2017 show Trump walking outside the White House with Keith Schiller, his director of operations, carrying folders and loose pieces of paper. One stickie-note, visible in both photographs, reveals the Secretary of Defense’s personal cell phone number. Such a photo challenges claims of professionalism made by the White House and questions their handling of sensitive information.
In May 2017, photojournalists were excluded from documenting a meeting Trump had with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, even though official Russian photographers were allowed to photograph the meeting. A Getty photograph that ran in Politico did show the foreign minister getting out of his car, providing evidence of his presence at the White House.
In another case of surveilling the President, Getty photojournalist Chip Somodevilla captured a discussion between Trump and Shinzo Abe outside the White House. In the photo, taken from a distance, Trump leans over the shorter Abe. As Somodevilla said, in an article from CNN.com, “I was too far away from the leaders to hear what was being discussed, but Trump was expressive and Abe—the political leader of a country of 127 million people that Trump was frequently critical of during the 2016 presidential election—stands close with fists clenched.”3 This photo presents viewers with a sense of how Trump interacts with other leaders.
A paparazzi approach isn’t just the purview of professionals. Much can be gleaned from amateur photographs taken behind the scenes. In February 2017, when President Trump dined with Abe at Mar-a-Lago, no photojournalists were able to photograph inside the club. Still, at least one club member took photographs of the President meeting with his national security team in the dining room in view of everyone, discussing North Korea’s recent missile launch. These photos were picked up by a number of outlets, including the New York Times, Business Insider, the Washington Post, and CNN.com. The same individual also posted selfies with an official who supposedly carries the President’s nuclear codes.
Another individual posted a picture in late March 2017 that was picked up by Time magazine of the President at another Trump golf course posing in golfing attire, including a golf glove, at a time when the press pool had been told he was working. In another late March 2017 moment, a social media producer at CNBC noticed an Instagram image of the President appearing to be watching the Golf Channel with two other people, again when the press pool had been told that he was in meetings. In early May 2017, an amateur photographer posted an image to Twitter of the President golfing in New Jersey, again out of sight of the White House press corps. As People magazine reporter Tierney McAfee argued, in a May 9, 2017, article: “The tweet gave White House reporters exiled in Branchburg, New Jersey—six miles away from Trump’s golf club—their only glimpse of the day into what the president was up to.” 4 All of these photographs help keep tabs on the President when he is “officially” out of sight.
Not to be outdone at their own game, an AOL News piece from late April 2017 suggests that paparazzi are getting into the game in Washington, DC, finding it lucrative to photograph members of the Trump administration, especially First Daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner. As Buzzfeed reporter Claudia Rosenbaum wrote in March 2017 describing DC with the presence of the Trumps: “Unlike the photographers in the White House press corps, for whom fear of retaliation or being blacklisted still runs rampant, paparazzi are under no such restraints.”5 At least one paparazzi agency, FameFlynet Pictures, has photographs of Trump and Abe golfing.
In January 2017, the Daily Mail published a series of photographs of members of the Trump administration arriving for Shabbat dinner at the Kushners’ DC home. In one photograph, Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce, is welcomed by Jared Kushner. In February 2017, the Daily Mail ran a series of photographs showing Wendi Deng, ex-wife of Rupert Murdoch, paying a call at the Kushner house. While none of these photographs are aesthetic masterpieces, they serve a monitorial function in documenting the comings and goings of the Kushners—two very influential people in the Trump administration.
The Washington Post’s media columnist Margaret Sullivan, in her April 28, 2017, column, suggested the media need to “scrutinize, not normalize” the Trump administration. A paparazzi approach to political photojournalism supports this notion by positioning photographers as visual fact-checkers, monitoring the Trump administration for mismatches between what is claimed or presented publicly and what occurs backstage. This expands our understanding of fact-checking sites, which generally focus their attention on verbal claims presented by politicians, not visual ones. The paparazzi suggest a model for how to incorporate visual fact-checking in photojournalism. Just as it is essential for reporters not to accept the utterances of a president at face value by looking deeper for obfuscations and contradictions, it is imperative that photojournalists look behind the publicly presented images of the President for visual contradictions. This is not to suggest that photojournalists not document the President as he chooses to be seen, just as reporters need to report what the President says publicly. Doing so provides a baseline for when photojournalists push backstage.
Fact-checking sites represent a version of the watchdog function of journalism, holding politicians accountable for what they say. Political communication scholars Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman argued in their 2004 book, The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World, that journalists need to see themselves as “custodians of fact.” A political paparazzi approach does just that by allowing photojournalists to take back some control from the President about how and when he is photographed. The resulting photographs provide citizens with a more nuanced understanding of the Trump White House: who is visiting the President, how the President spends his time, and how the backstage image of the President lines up with the frontstage version. For example, if Trump claims to be heavily engaged in policy meetings, photographs can show otherwise. Of course, unexpected moments can happen even at the most scripted events—an odd expression or gesture, or a gaffe—but paparazzi moments are ideally when the President is less conscious of being photographed, and thus more authentic.
Moreover, the lack of artistry in paparazzi-style images may increase the journalistic authority for viewers, as facts are emphasized over aesthetics, in a way similar to citizen journalism of breaking news events shot with camera phones, as I argue in my 2013 chapter, “The Indecisive Moment: Snapshot Aesthetics as Journalistic Truth.”6 With the prevalence of Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat, citizens are used to seeing poorly composed photographs that circulate immediately when news occurs. To that end, photographs that look too crafted may be viewed as less truthful than something that is more raw.
Ultimately, this approach functions to serve notice to politicians that they will continue to be watched. As communication scholar James Lull wrote in a September 2, 1997 Los Angeles Times op-ed piece: “When a princess or a president wants media attention, he or she gets it. But if we allow media celebrities—political figures, sports heroes, movie stars, billionaire businessmen, pop musicians, and yes, members of the royal family—to limit the context in which they are viewed and pondered, then we would miss out on lots of important history.”