Gov. Gavin Newsom looked dashing in his aviator glasses leaning against the Great Wall of China in a photo taken last year by freelancer and former photojournalist/war photographed Charles Ommanney who was part of his entourage.
Like all rock stars — even the aging ones like Mick Jagger — you’ve got to put your best face out there.
Ommanney was hired by Newsom, using state money of course, to serve as the director of photography for the governor’s office.
It’s a nice gig, if you can get it.
It comes with a $200,000 annual salary plus the perk of being able to criss-cross California following the unmasked governor as he saves California from wildfires, the homeless, and politically incorrect MAGA Republicans.
It’s a chance to show the world Newsom is faster than progress on a high speed rail project, stronger than a strong leader, and more dashing too.
One mustn’t forget the youth vote, after all.
They need to know Newsom is having a brat summer even if the $20 billion the state on his watch has dumped into combatting homelessness hasn’t — basically in his own words — done squat.
Newsom really should give himself a break, given there is a lot more squatting being done these days on public property and California leads the way.
To be clear, Newsom isn’t the only governor — red, blue, or purple — that has a dedicated photographer on staff paid by those he’s urging Nov. 5 to underwrite another $20 billion in bonds so he can create some infrastructure photo ops to give Ommanney a chance to photograph his best side.
Elected officials too often get a little carried away in what is essential to govern as opposed to what is self-promotion.
Taxpayer financed photographers have been around for decades.
The official presidential photographer, for example, has been a staple since the Kennedy Administration and before.
How else would we have the historic moment where President Kennedy was “snapped” by White House photographer Cecil William Stoughton in the Oval Office playing with his then toddler son under “the” desk.
Gee, maybe the White House archives or the Kennedy Library might have photos of John Jr.’s cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr. retrieving road kill from Pennsylvania Avenue and placing it in the trunk of his uncle’s presidential limo?
You can rest assured Ronald Reagan understood the importance of having someone around well versed in lighting and composition to create an image of virility, dignity, and competency.
It’s all part of the gig.
That’s why Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon, with a straight face, could issue a statement to Politico this past week stating “Charles (Ommanney) plays an instrumental role in communicating the work of government across visual platforms — including social media — helping us meet Californians where they are at.”
Too bad Newsom and his team don’t meet Californians when they are at the supermarket checkout or where they are at when they open their PG&E bill.
The videos could easily get a million likes on social media platform and be peppered with potty mouth words that political hacks from all dimensions like to drop on TikTok, X, et al to communicate on issues.
Newsom, by the way, pulls down $234,101 a year.
For just a $34,101 a year pay cut, Newsom could have a cushier job and not lose sleep at night worrying how the State of Florida is governed.
Given how tech savvy the world has gotten, one must wonder about the continued use of official photographers serving as elected public officials’ personal paparazzi on the taxpayers’ dime can be justified.
This is not to suggest Newsom take selfies showing him governing California.
But if 12 year-old social media influencers using tech equipment you buy online for $99 can produce Hollywood quality images without hiring $200,000 a year professionals, you’d think Newsom’s social media director or communications director could do the same.
In case Gov. Tech hasn’t noticed, iPhones et al have revolutionized photography.
With just a little training beyond point and shoot, even a social media and/or a communication director on the public’s payroll can produce images of Newsom that would be compelling and effectively communicate what he does.
Congressman Josh Harder, and Jeff Denham before him, had staff whose primary function was communications who could take photos of their bosses working. They did not need a staff photographer.
One would hope one day we will get elected leaders — Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Dingbats, or whatever name they gather under — who would make the small changes that can add up.
How many things are there in Sacramento that are superfluous, inefficient, and a waste of money in today’s world that state government is doing because it has been doing it.
Newsom has no problem closing prisons to adapt to his version of a changing world, but he can’t let go of a $200,000 old school position such as an official staff photographer in a world remade by tech in the very state he wants to communicate about how an effective job he is doing governing.
If you still believe having $200,000 of your tax dollars go to hire a full-time personal photographer for not just Newsom but any California governor going forward is a wise use of tax dollars, here’s a question.
Would that $200,000 — and similar questionable expenditures made irrelevant by a changing world — be better spent redirected to assisting the working poor, public safety, or advancing water sustainability endeavors?
They say a picture is worth a 1,000 words.
But in the case of an “official” Newsom in action as governor picture, it is with $200,000.
