A woman has been nominated for president. Here’s a picture of her husband

The Chicago Tribune is rightly getting some pushback today for its tone-deaf front page coverage of last evening’s historic moment when a woman was nominated to be the president of the United States by a major party.


How hard would it have been to include a picture of the newsmaker?

Let the Duluth News Tribune be your guide.


The Wisconsin State Journal? What’s your verdict?


“If only the nominee had made an appearance at the convention” you say?

She did.

Update 11:58 a.m. 7/28-

  • jon

    We had the headline type set and photo still in the computer from 1992…
    we figured no one would notice the difference.

  • MrE85

    Add the Houston Chronicle to the list of offending newspapers. https://twitter.com/_ToddStone/status/758283933305872384

    • This is like a headline “Lindbergh Makes it to Paris” with a picture of Orville and Wilbur underneath.

      • chlost

        Or with a photo of Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

    • Dan

      Printed newspapers? How quaint.
      If you look at the Houston Chronicle website, they’ve moved on from that story already, the most prominent headline is “Whataburger restaurants didn’t always look like this”

      • Newspapers still set the news agenda. Like it or not. They do

  • Jack Ungerleider

    Since we’re critiquing the approach, here’s my 2 cents:

    While she made an “appearance” last night I’m not sure that would be the image to use. I like the way the News-Tribune did it. The photo of Secretary Clinton appears to be from a file photo of a rally. She looks happy and excited. The State-Journal’s photo of the nominee looks to be a clip from the video and she looks a little stiff. Both papers go with an image of Bill Clinton in mid speech, which is appropriate in this case since he was out supporting his wife’s nomination.

    Of the two examples I find the News-Tribune’s treatment better than the State-Journal’s. Keeping the picture of Bill Clinton smaller and off to the side with Hillary Clinton’s small image front and centered under the headline puts the focus on her. The State-Journal still injects some ambiguity into the headline with the half page image of Bill Clinton in the center and the relatively small image of Mrs. Clinton lost to the side of the page.

    • The Star Tribune did a good job showing the significance of the moment with its picture selection. Women delegates hugging and crying.

  • Paul

    Without knowing she was running, you’d think Bill was nominated again.

  • Dan

    It was a formality, right? She clinched a long time ago. Bill was the keynote, that was what the DNC featured most prominently for this moment, so it makes sense to use a photo of him. Hillary apparently had something in New York that was too important to appear in person for a photo op, and appeared rather late on the big monitor. Oh, the poutrage.

    • This is what mansplaining is, by the way.

      • Dan

        I thought mansplaining was when a man explained something to a woman, and that you are a man.

        • Rob

          Look up the definition.

          • Dan

            Maybe you can mansplain it to me

          • Rob

            I don’t do mansplaining, so you’ll need to look elsewhere

          • Dan

            I was kidding, I’ve seen The Newsroom, you could put a picture of Aaron Sorkin next to the definition. I’d just not heard of a man being mansplained to before, even a feminist man. I don’t really care about the original retort though

    • Jack Ungerleider

      Hillary is keeping to a long standing tradition that the nominee doesn’t appear at the convention until the acceptance speech or at least until after the running mate’s acceptance speech. So she might appear on stage tonight after Tim Kaine’s speech. That more important thing she is probably doing in NY is working out the contents of her speech for Thursday night.

      • Dan

        In 2008, the roll call, suspension of the rules by Clinton, and official nomination took place on Wednesday, and Obama took the stage that night after Biden’s speech.

        My point is, I don’t see how you could have watched the show last night and reasonably come away with an impression other than Bill as main event. That’s the dog and pony show the DNC put forward, and the media is making an honest attempt to cover what happened.
        Now, could the DNC have staged it better?


        • Rob

          whether bill was the main show ain’t anywhere near relevant, as HE’S NOT THE NOMINEE

          • Dan

            Was there this much bitching yesterday when the coverage was about Michelle Obama? She’s not the nominee either.

          • Rob

            I’m guessing any coverage of Michelle was actually accompanied by photos or footage of Michelle. But thanks for the name-calling.

          • Dan

            Wait who did I call a name?

            Michelle was the keynote Monday, Bill last night, Kaine tonight then Hillary. It’s a four day pageant just like every year. The press will dutifully cover the event as the DNC orchestrates. A majestic picture of Hillary in front of the crowd will appear just as soon as she shows.
            There are innumerable examples of sexist treatment of Hillary, by the mainstream press and others. This isn’t one of them. It reeks people with the “why are they talking about the husband” complaint locked and loaded, but fired prematurely.

          • The journalistic flaw in your argument is glaring. The headline states the lede. If your lede states what the story is, it’s illogical to say that the photo selection is defensible because it’s the REAL story — not the one you wrote in your head and lede.

            That’s simply not how the business works.

            And there’s simply no interpretation of that hypothetical that doesn’t lead back to a crappy job of journalism.

          • Dan

            I wasn’t saying what the REAL story is, I’m saying the DNC presented a visual picture of Tuesday’s activities and, it was Bill.

            Is Hillary getting the official nod the REAL story? Yeah. I guess maybe you’ve got higher expectations of the print media than I do. I expect their coverage of the conventions to be… dutiful. Their layout guys used photos of what the TV audience primarily saw, which is what I see as their motivation, not some sexist affront.

          • That might be true, but the DNC doesn’t get to tell news editors what the story is.

            That’s just not how it’s supposed to work. But, yes, occasionally does.

          • Jeff

            Maybe you didn’t hear about that communication between the DNC and news outlets…the DNC DOES tell news editors what the story is!

          • Huh. It’s almost as if you think I’m not in the industry. :*)

            If COURSE the DNC can tell editors what the story is. They can say anything they want.
            They don’t get to dictate it

          • She didn’t compete with a moment of history. She was actually the story.

            The thing is, this is the sort of thing women have experienced for decades. That’s why it resonates.

            At some point, men need to understand that they’re uniquely unqualified to render judgement on the validity of their perspective.

            And increasingly, they just look silly when they do.

        • Jack Ungerleider

          I agree with Bob on this to make your point work the main headline should have been: Former President Calls Wife “Best darn change maker I know” with the subhead of “Hillary Clinton Claims Historic Nomination”

      • Rob

        so how about using any one of the thousands of photos of Hillary that are at the newspaper’s fingertips?

        a big dope smack to the Chi Trib

    • Twinkiedawn

      Well, she was there via Skype (or whatever venue they used) so…

    • rallysocks

      Regardless, of having ‘clinched it’, it’s a big freaking moment. A freaking moment that shouldn’t have taken so long to get to, by the way. Give the woman her glory for Pete’s sake! We look at pictures of the Good Old Boys Club every freaking day…

  • Khatti

    I see your point, on the other hand I do have a pretty good idea what Hillary Clinton looks like.

    • Postal Customer

      That’s mansplaining! You’re mansplaining! Stop mansplaining!

      Also, you’re probably manspreading too. And probably doing some other action with an idiotic word invented by clever internet denizens.

      • Kassie

        You men are so sensitive. I will never understand why men are allowed in leadership positions. They just take everything so damn personally.

      • It’s shorter than writing “men who are arrogant enough to adopt the exclusive expertise on the life and perspective of women”. Saves time. Saves space. Very economical.

        There are any number of crude obscenities which also work, by the way.

      • Khatti

        Gee I did all that. I have been busy.

  • Postal Customer

    Man the internet loves to get mad.

    • joolz

      With reason.

    • Guys dismissing legitimate and ongoing sexism. Whites dismissing the first-person experiences of blacks and people of color.

      This is the sound of privilege. Enjoy it while you can, fellas.

      • MikeB

        “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”

        Saw this the other day, on the Internet, fits well with some of the keyboard commandos

        • Jerry

          I consider it more like being spoiled children. White men have received all the attention and “toys” and some throw a fit when some one else gets them.

  • Rob

    If we had tried to turn in that front page for our junior high school journalism class, we’d all have gotten instant Fs. sheesh.

  • John

    While it seems idiotic not to put a picture of the nominee up to match the headline, I don’t pay attention to the covers of newspapers most days. What did they put on the cover of the Tribune when the nominee from the other party was announced?

    If it was a picture of his wife (who I believe gave a memorable speech on or around that day), then, while this was still a stupid editorial decision on the part of apparently MANY newspapers, at least they’re consistently stupid. (I feel like I already know the answer to that question, but I’m trying not to grab the pitchfork and torch without the data to back it up.)

  • Beth Barron

    Thanks for putting this out there.. Just couldn’t believe it. I heard from someone that she wasn’t there and then my son, told me that she was… so I’m not sure but couldn’t they have used a stock photo? Yep, sexism. Misogyny… We all cringe at the word… Let’s continue to cringe at the acts until it disappears.. Racism too…

  • MrE85

    One newspaper that did this — the Seattle Times — has apologized to its readers. http://www.poynter.org/2016/seattle-times-apologizes-to-readers-for-clinton-front-page/423711/