Yesterday, of course, was a historic day. At the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last night a major US political party selected a woman as its nominee for president for the first time in history. That woman, of course, is Hillary Clinton. So why, wondered noted SF politico Nathan Ballard, was her husband — not Hillary — on the front page of today's San Francisco Chronicle?
Ballard asked the pointed quested in a tweet directed at the Chronicle's Editor in Chief, Audrey Cooper. "What's the rationale behind putting the photo of the husband (rather than the history-making nominee) above the fold?" wrote Ballard. Cooper did not take the question kindly.
"Are you serious?" she replied. "Because she wasn't there when it happened. You can't photoshop her in, you know."
Ballard then responded with screenshots of the front pages of numerous papers around the country that did, in fact, feature the former Secretary of State on their front page.
@audreycoopersf Here's another approach that features the nominee herself. pic.twitter.com/QSqi43IXgg
— Nathan Ballard (@NateBallard) July 27, 2016
Cooper, shall we say, was not pleased.
@NateBallard Tnx for the journalism lesson. U think deep sexism by me led us to keep her off a1? C'mon.
— Audrey Cooper (@audreycoopersf) July 27, 2016
The Chronicle, of course, was not the only paper to feature former president Bill Clinton on A1 in lieu of the current Democratic nominee. Both Vox and Fortune did roundups of the offending papers, and found that the Chronicle had a lot of company.
So what's the deal? Cooper, for her part, argued that it was about not "[trying] to fake it by not running a live photo."
@NateBallard And I can send you back a hundred more that didn't try to fake it by not running a live photo.
— Audrey Cooper (@audreycoopersf) July 27, 2016
Which, OK, sure. But left unanswered there is how using a photo of the person the story is about is considered faking it.
Related: Everyone Is Awful: Chronicle Declines To Endorse Anyone In Presidential Primary