The Liberal Media, Yet Again
What the hell is it with the “Liberal Media” and unflattering photos of Hillary Clinton? Hillary is not my favorite candidate at this time, but the media’s obsession with catching her in mid-reaction and making her look like a loon is reaching new lows. This photo was represented as “news” by the AP, with this caption:
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York reacts to seeing and old friend during a campaign stop at the National Education Association New Hampshire, in Concord, N.H., Friday, March 30, 2007. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
As if this image were somehow representative or legitimate as a news photo. The fact of the matter is, when you photograph people, you always get shots like this. Try it out on anyone who is having an animated conversation, especially on video, and then freeze-frame through it–you’ll catch them in any number of bizarre-looking poses. It’s not because they’re ugly or because they’re a loon–it’s simply an effect of the camera.
The thing is, such photographic buffoonery is typical of ten-year-olds, not news organizations. Any serious photojournalist will as a matter of course edit out these shots when choosing something for serious consideration. To do otherwise is considered an editorial dig at the person in question. And yet, Hillary Clinton repeatedly gets shown by news organizations in shots just like this.
Usually, you’ll find this kind of crap on biased blogs and humor sites, not news outlets–at least for Republican figures. It’s not as if Bush could never be caught looking stupid; witness these shots from non-news sources:
And yet, I guarantee you that you won’t see these images of Bush on the major news services, especially above captions that would otherwise be deemed serious. Instead, we get views of Bush that look like this:
The thing is, this is not new. I wrote on this back in July 2004 when I noticed the exact same dichotomy between press images of Bush and Gore.
Doubt me? Then check for yourself. Thumb through the Yahoo photo collections of Bush, and then of Clinton. Every fifth or so shot of Clinton has her looking stupid and goony-faced. At best, one of every thirty or so of Bush has him looking even slightly silly.
So why is it that leading Democrats get plastered in the news media with those freeze-frame effects looking like loons, while Bush and Republicans get the hero shots?
Gee, you don’t think there could be a bias in the media that’s not liberal, do you? Naaahhhh.
Just another day in the life of a great country bent on even greater self destruction.
The old saw, “a broken system can’t fix itself” rings true. We are, simply speaking, self destructing by systematic advocating for the blatently ruinious and incompetant and against the obviously competant.
The media is like a matador, trying to egg us on into hurdling the country over a cliff. I mean, think of the headlines it will generate.
You gotta read the whole series, dude.Not just this story, but this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this… let’s see, that takes us up to August of last year.Then there was also this, this, this, this, this, and this. I’m pretty sure that this list is not comprehensive of what I’ve posted on, but it’s most of it. So read the whole list, tell me again about how liberal the media is. And remember that this is just a small sample of all that’s out there.
How are your own meds doing?
LMFAO. This is yoour “proof” for a “conservative bias” in the media? Good lord, get back on your meds!
Almost nine out of ten journalists self identify as liberal or Democrat.
Read that statement over and over. Move your lips if it helps.
Perhaps it will sink in.
Terry Holtz
Libertarian Party
Terry: 9 out of 10? Yeah, right. I know a troll when I see one. Cite a source that can be checked, or just get used to being laughed at.
It seems, however, that there is a reason you didn’t cite the source–because this seems to be it. And it is so laughable that I understand why you were too embarrassed to identify it. It simply identified *some* of the many reporters who donated to *specific* races for a *limited period of time.* It did not, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, even come remotely *close* to surveying the political orientation of “all” journalists as you so falsely imply. (Or did you just regurgitate a stat you never checked out yourself?) It is so ludicrously inept as a survey of political leanings in the media as to make one wonder if it were intentional satire.
Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox News, donated $2300 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign last year. So, if he were counted as a reporter and the survey counted 2007, then, by that measure, Rupert Murdoch is a “liberal.”
Or maybe you were referring to the “Freedom Forum”‘s bogus “study” which used a similarly laughable methodology: they sent 300+ surveys out and got 1/3 back as replies, and most right-wing publications were not even sent surveys! Instead, there was a very stilted bias towards small, local news outlets with only one D.C. correspondent, many of those organizations being liberal action groups. Again, one could go one for hours about how flawed such an approach is.
Or maybe you’re referring to the just as shoddy Rothman/Black “study” which worked with similarly small and slanted populations, from the primary author (Rothman) who is rather spectacularly biased and has done “surveys” which have found liberal bias pretty much everywhere.
Or maybe some other “survey” or “poll” or “study” with the same old tired stupid errors and bias that prove nothing but that some people just love the liberal-media fantasy, for whatever reason.