Policy corner: The scrutiny we give to photographs of politicians and candidates

We always scrutinize the photographs we use, and now in the primary election season, we watch carefully which photos we use of people in or running for public office.

Especially in bigger races such as the governor's race, congressional races, Senate races and of course presidential races, several photos of a candidate can be taken during a single event, and they can present a wide variety of looks: serious, happy, calm, stern, angry, sad or just, sometimes, goofy. That's whether they really were any of those things; sometimes it's just an unlucky freeze frame.

We still remember how we took criticism during the George W. Bush years when we ran an unflattering photo of Dick Cheney. Cheney's supporters thought we were out to make him look bad. He did present a challenge, because even his smile could look like a grimace. We had similar challenges with Hillary Clinton, who often displayed a wide-eyed smile when greeting a crowd, some would say making her look silly, before she got to serious business.

From the many looks of a person we might get, our job is to choose one that accurately portrays the person's appearance during the event. If it was mostly serious, we'll likely choose a serious, distinguished image. If the key moment of a hearing or speech was an angry outburst or message, we might show that person's anger. If a person simply smiled a lot, we might show that.

And if a hearing or speech becomes a roller coaster of emotions, we might then decide we must run at least a few images.

We bear this in mind for political races big and small. Our policy is to present politicians and candidates accurately and with dignity.