No Liberal Bias Media, My Ass!

I was just checking my e-mail tonight at and found this lovely AP photograph of our 43rd President.

This photo was accompanying a story about increasing our military strength.

The obvious “horns” on Dubya are most certainly not a boo-boo. While I know there is a heavy concentration of liberals here, certainly you cannot condone such parlor tricks no matter what your politics.

I just hit the page again and lo and behold, the pic has been change to another file photo. < sigh > Whatever happened to just reporting the fucking news without all of this spin doctor shit?

GeeDub is the Anti-Christ? So, this is news to who?

Wasn’t there that photo a while back where his the seal behind gave him a halo?

Obvious conservative media bias, subtly portraying Bush as a mighty ox, pulling America towards a new dawn.

Or it could be a coincidence. But that would be ridiculous.

Wow, it’s the kinda thread Reeder would have started.

Except he’d be cheering the image.

[wipes away a tear]

Um, is your idea of a representative sample of the entire media estate? You need to get out more hon. And they sure proved their entrenched “liberal bias” by immediately removing the image. :rolleyes:

Ah, here we go; And in searching for it I discovered that it, too, was an AP photo. Such disreputable parlour tricks.

Clearly, the photographer is on the payroll of the pro-rabbit lobby. How DARE he imply that the President approves of giving people “bunny ears” in photos!

Just reflecting, but there are other, more traditional interpretations of “wearing horns”. Like somebody else been a-clearing Ms. Laura’s brush, down on Rancho Delicioso. Just sayin’, is all.

And if it were Condi, would GeeDub be crowned with a doughnut?

Yep, there have been several. I used to check the most popular photos on Yahoo! pretty regularly and they would turn up there quite a bit. The presidential seal is a good candidate. An image search for bush+halo turns up quite a few including many photoshops.

Link to the story, please. When I clicked on the link in your OP, I saw a frickin’ halo.

I guess when one is inclined to find something to scorn, one tends to succeed.

Anyway, I’d like to see what this story looks like, with its new, non-liberally biased photo.

Your condesending attitude is rude and really not necessary, lissener, hon. I don’t play in the pit that often so sue me. Did I say that att represents the entire media base? No. It’s an example, hon. “example [ig-zam-puhl] noun an item of information that is representative of a type.”

Perhaps the title is misleading and even maybe a cheap shot. My bitch is more with the tactic rather than whether it’s done with a liberal or conservative bias. It’s annoying as hell to have to weed out the bull from the bullshit at every turn.

I am fairly certain this was meant as a joke.

Feh, AFAIK no mainstream media outlet as bothered to report that the “footage worth in gold” of the Saddam statue being toppled in Iraq was a created moment by the USA for propaganda purposes. (only the BBC bothered to make a correction)

Likewise, when Saddam was captured, the images of celebrating Iraqis were posted, but there was a problem… The ones celebrating a lot were members of the communist party in Iraq! The pictures and the captions changed the same day to not make a reference to those extremists and imply all Iraqis on the whole were glad. (I still think they assumed the fragile minds of American readers would broke on the realization we liberated Iraq only to have “those” people get freedom to move in too).

And lets not talk about the media also not taking much responsibility for being stenographers for the administration on the way to war (Cheney back then : “You see! The Times is reporting that we are right!” (Never mind that it turned out that the scoops had come from the administration too!)

Makes one want to sneak up with a squirt gun full of Holy Water, you know, just to see. Not worth being gunned down by the Secret Service, but still…

Excuse me, but is giggling in the pit a bannable offense? If it is, I’m so outta here. :smiley:

No, you’re simply going to Hell. With the rest of us. Cya there.

By claiming it as evidence of a “liberal media bias,” you did, in fact, say exactly that.

Just because you can find one isolated liberal rag here or there does not, despite what Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, prove the existence of the mythical beast known as the “liberal media.”

Even if it did, this ain’t it: they changed the photo. Seems like pretty clear evidence of a *conservative * media bias.

Damn that lib’ruhl media fer takin’ down the pic of Byzantine Halo’ed George!

'Course, that first halo does have a bit of a Russki look to it.

God Bless the AP fer not lettin’ a goldang commie halo sully the Blessed Haid of our All-American Forty-Third President! Yee-HAW!

But come ta think of it, a halo is a halo…

<head explodes>