So he's clearly very expressive and not particularly photogenic.
What problems does that actually expose about his platform, or how does it show that his opponents are correct? It is barely even an ad-hominem attack - am attack on his character or reputation might lead me to believe that his viewpoint is held by untrustworthy people, but his face? It means nothing.
And yet it does have a small subconscious impact, causing a bias in my thinking.
But of course choosing well-timed pictures, also known as "photojournalism", is a long-established method of applying political influence of media. It was done to Hillary Clinton, it's done to Trump.
In fact if you search on farage site:dailymail.co.uk vs farage site:theguardian.com it seems that, if anything, the latter tends to use fewer ridiculous images of him.
The Daily Mail also sometimes uses images of (left-wing) Jeremy Corbyn, such as this:
At least after clicking on some of the more "expressive" photos it does seem that they are being used by media stories that are more "against" than "about" him, like how he refuted the claim that he had promised that £350 million pounds of money...
What problems does that actually expose about his platform, or how does it show that his opponents are correct? It is barely even an ad-hominem attack - am attack on his character or reputation might lead me to believe that his viewpoint is held by untrustworthy people, but his face? It means nothing.
And yet it does have a small subconscious impact, causing a bias in my thinking.