[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Anyway, do you know for certain that they’ve never met? 
[/QUOTE]
No major tectonic events nor Signs of the Last Days have been reported, have they? 
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
However, for irrefutable proof of liberal media bias, I would simply point to the fact that there is so little liberal complaint about it.
[/quote]
I don’t think the word “proof” means what you think it means.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You guys have been whingeing over every little thing you don’t like for decades now. If you didn’t feel simpatico with the way the media was reporting you’d be whining about it nonstop.
[/quote]
If you want to read left or liberal critiques of the media, you might start with this book. You might also try out authors such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Robert McChesney, and many others. I can assure you that there has been no shortage of left/liberal critiques of the media. Just because you can’t find it on townhall.com or freerepublic.com doesn’t mean it isn’t out there.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
And hey, Red…surely you haven’t deluded yourself into thinking I’d have the slightest interest in anything you have to say? You’re much too hotheaded, knee-jerkish and irrational for me to pay much attention to.
[/quote]
Too irrational for you? I don’t believe that’s possible.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
However, for irrefutable proof of liberal media bias, I would simply point to the fact that there is so little liberal complaint about it. You guys have been whingeing over every little thing you don’t like for decades now. If you didn’t feel simpatico with the way the media was reporting you’d be whining about it nonstop.
[/QUOTE]
For a long-running liberal critique of anti-left media bias, I’d go to http://www.dailyhowler.com/ .
Or here on this board, I’ve personally started three threads critical of media bias just this fall. (Of course, one of them was criticizing the Wall Street Journal (for equating ‘gay’ with ‘pedophile’ in Foleygate), so only two of them really count as lefty critiques of the mainstream media, I suppose.) But please note that one of those threads was titled, “Our ‘liberal’ media, vol. 1472,” so this SDMB lefty, at least, is already on record as regarding this as an ongoing problem.
“So little liberal complaint,” my ass.
[QUOTE=Ruby]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me this post was satire and not intended to a seriously offered argument.
Because that’s just whole new levels of dumb.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Ah, here we go; http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d90/shadeedge/bush_halo5.jpg?t=1166680573 And in searching for it I discovered that it, too, was an AP photo. Such disreputable parlour tricks.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the so-called halo? That’s just good graphical composition. Zheesh. I’m a photographer and I used to do pure photojournalism, and that totally would be a photo I would take. It has nothing to do with me making it look like Bush is “holy” or anything. It’s just that if I’m looking for a different angle, I’d shoot maybe from the side. But, hey, there’s this distracting seal in the way. Well, we could eliminate it completely from the background, and get a dramatically lit picture that looks like every other picture taken from the side lit by TV lights from the front or I could add an element of compositional interest like, say, an out-of-focus presidential seal. Whoop de fuckin do.
Now, the eagle horns–it’s really hard to say. The photographer may have been having a bit of fun, or may have simply been shooting from an angle that made the seal look like horns, without noticing. I wouldn’t put money on it either way.