Dear Congressman Lamborn: Sometimes photographs are difficult to look at

The objective of having a staff is not doing everything yourself. You can either trust the decisions of your staff or you play the control freak and control everything they do. This congressman trusted the decision of those people responsible for handling the media stuff. Pretty normal behavior I think.

Why did he deny to look at the photo afterwards? Because he's a professional. If he admitted that he's seen the photo, the next question would be "do you think this is child pornography". Boom....killer question, like "have you ever smoked pot?".
 
Last edited:
I think the congressman didn't care about the content of the photo, and I am sure he would not be personally offended by it (it is an excellent and striking image, by the way ).

He simply had the opportunity to attack an opponent with the phrase "child pornography" and cynically took the cheap shot. This is about the lowest politics has sunk in my lifetime.

Randy
 
Lanborn: a rabid, corrupt, malevolent shell of a man. And those are the good things I have to say about him.
 
I see this thread has been moved to "Off Topic," and I suppose it did—inevitably—stray off topic, and quickly at that, but I do want to say that the reason I brought it to this forum was to discuss the potential for photography to be misunderstood, whether accidentally or more cynically, on purpose.

I also think that the photographer did a great job documenting a troubling issue while preserving her subjects' humanity.

You may now resume your film-is-dead and which-bag-makes-my-butt-look-big? conversations. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom