While I think Svitek’s article was both slightly irresponsible and racist I don’t really see anything objectionable in that picture of Kellyn? Is portrayal of someone gesturing a form of dog-whistle politics I’m currently unaware of?
The man looks justifiably angry as he has every right to be in this scenario. The picture may be unflattering to his good looks but not to his point and the matter at hand.
Thanks horridlittlegames for your question. Firstly, when it comes to an article, everything, from title to word choice and placement to photography is vital in conveying the ‘whole’ message. Now, let’s consider the big picture. This writer in another article describes this same guy as ‘aggressive’, ‘strong arming’, and seemingly rash and emotive. There are probably a number of photos to use to represent Kellyn; why would you use that one?
But in general, understand that everything is politics — especially when you’re dealing with a news paper which allowed letters calling Lewis a criminal, a communist, and comparing him to Al Sharpton (not that there is anything wrong with Rev. Sharpton).