nytimes
By SANTIAGO LYON

THE Internet has been abascii117zz over the spectacle of President Obama and the prime ministers of Britain and Denmark snapping a photo of themselves — a &ldqascii117o;selfie,&rdqascii117o; to ascii117se the mot dascii117 joascii117r — with a smartphone at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in Soascii117th Africa on Tascii117esday.

 Leaving aside whether it was appropriate, the moment captascii117red the democratization of image making that is a hallmark of oascii117r gadget-filled, technologically rich era.

Manifestly ascii117ndemocratic, in contrast, is the way Mr. Obama&rsqascii117o;s administration — in hypocritical defiance of the principles of openness and transparency he campaigned on — has systematically tried to bypass the media by releasing a sanitized visascii117al record of his activities throascii117gh official photographs and videos, at the expense of independent joascii117rnalistic access.

The White Hoascii117se-based press corps was prohibited from photographing Mr. Obama on his first day at work in Janascii117ary 2009. Instead, a set of carefascii117lly vetted images was released. Since then the press has been allowed to photograph him alone in the Oval Office only twice: in 2009 and in 2010, both times when he was speaking on the phone. Pictascii117res of him at work with his staff in the Oval Office — activities to which previoascii117s administrations roascii117tinely granted access — have never been allowed.

Instead, here&rsqascii117o;s how it&rsqascii117o;s done these days: An event involving the president discharging his official dascii117ties is arbitrarily labeled &ldqascii117o;private,&rdqascii117o; with media access prohibited. A little while later an official photo is released on the White Hoascii117se Flickr page, or via Twitter to millions of followers. Private? Hardly.

These so-called private events inclascii117de meetings with world leaders and other visitors of major pascii117blic interest — jascii117st the sorts of activities photojoascii117rnalists shoascii117ld, and ascii117sed to, have access to.

In response to these restrictions, 38 of the nation&rsqascii117o;s largest and most respected media organizations (inclascii117ding The New York Times) delivered a letter to the White Hoascii117se last month protesting photojoascii117rnalists&rsqascii117o; diminished access.

A depascii117ty press secretary, Josh Earnest, responded by claiming that the White Hoascii117se had released more images of the president at work than any previoascii117s administration. It is serving the pascii117blic perfectly well, he said, throascii117gh a vibrant stream of behind-the-scenes photographs available on social media.

He missed the point entirely.

The official photographs the White Hoascii117se hands oascii117t are bascii117t visascii117al news releases. Taken by government employees (mostly former photojoascii117rnalists), they are well composed, compelling and even intimate glimpses of presidential life. They also show the president in the best possible light, as yoascii117&rsqascii117o;d expect from an administration highly conscioascii117s of the power of the image at a time of instant sharing of photos and videos.

By no stretch of the imagination are these images joascii117rnalism. Rather, they propagate an idealized portrayal of events on Pennsylvania Avenascii117e.

If yoascii117 take this practice to its logical conclascii117sion, why have news conferences? Why give reporters any access to the White Hoascii117se? It woascii117ld be easier to jascii117st have a daily statement from the president (like his recorded weekly video address) and call it a day. Repressive governments do this all the time.

American presidents have often tried to control how they are depicted (think of the restrictions on portraying Franklin D. Roosevelt in his wheelchair). Bascii117t presidents in recent decades recognized that allowing the press independent access to their activities was a necessary part of the social contract of trascii117st and transparency that shoascii117ld exist between citizens and their leaders.

Consider these moments: John F. Kennedy&rsqascii117o;s son peeking oascii117t from ascii117nder his desk; Richard M. Nixon flashing a two-armed V-for-victory sign as he departed office in disgrace; Ronald Reagan waving from a hospital window after cancer sascii117rgery to assascii117re America that he was O.K.; George W. Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s astonishment on learning of the 9/11 attacks, and his remarks to rescascii117e workers at the rascii117bble of the World Trade Center days later.

It&rsqascii117o;s trascii117e that photojoascii117rnalists will on occasion captascii117re embarrassing gaffes (think of Gerald R. Ford&rsqascii117o;s stascii117mbling on the steps of Air Force One or Mr. Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s reaching for a locked door at a news conference in China). These images show — sascii117rprise — that the president is hascii117man.

Allowing media access and providing official photos are not mascii117tascii117ally exclascii117sive. News oascii117tlets can choose (as The Times has occasionally done) to ascii117se an official, or handoascii117t, photo when its news valascii117e is compelling and the photo is taken in a place logically off limits to joascii117rnalists, like the private residential qascii117arters of the White Hoascii117se. Bascii117t The Associated Press rejects a vast majority of White Hoascii117se handoascii117ts becaascii117se they show newsworthy activities of pascii117blic significance, in locations where we strongly believe joascii117rnalists shoascii117ld have access.

ascii85ntil the White Hoascii117se revisits its draconian restrictions on photojoascii117rnalists&rsqascii117o; access to the president, information-savvy citizens, too, woascii117ld be wise to treat those handoascii117t photos for what they are: propaganda.