I already addressed your point. YES, undiscerning readers will jump to conclusions based on the pictures without properly evaluating the content. That’s a given.
It also has jack squat to do with the issue of whether the Fox News website displayed a pro-Bush, anti-Obama slant. Some undiscerning readers (including some Dopers, apparently) may jump to this conclusion based on the photographic content, but that’s their own darned fault. Careful readers know better than to draw judgments based primarily on pretty pictures.
Permission was sought and given for this mission presumably otherwise it would have been an act of war?
Does the attitude of Obama vs that of Bush play into that permission being forthcoming? I do seem to remember Bush being denied permission for some missions…
Okay. Earlier today, I pointed out that the Fox News website had a large banner at the very top of its website, saying “Watch Live President Obama Speaks About Bin Laden’s Death at Medal of Honor Ceremony”. At that very same time, the story about Bush was nowhere to be seen on its front page.
Using your logic, should we not conclude that Fox was trying to present its readers with a pro-Obama slant? Or does this logic only apply when it supports the liberal Doper’s preferred conclusion?
That response makes no sense and you know it. Spin is spin, whether it’s about a current president or any other public figure.
Look, you insinuated that foxnews.com was manipulating its readers because, at one particular period in its newsday, it had a photo of GWBush (way down at the bottom of its site, BTW) and no photos or other prominent attention given to Obama. The fact, however, is that Obama WAS featured prominently – just not at that particular moment. News sites change their content everyday; indeed, every few hours, if possible. So there were times when Obama was much more prominently featured, and a time when he was not.
So why did it have a photo of Bush, but not of Barack? The only reason that Bush’s photo was shown is because that particular news story was about his response to the death of Bin Laden. Even that story was all about his praise for the current President – hence the prominent subheadline, “Former president commends his successor and the military on ‘this momentous achievement’.”
You are REALLY, really stretching if you think that this particular example aptly illustrates some devious plot to manipulate the readers into accepting a pro-Bush, anti-Obama viewpoint.
“What about…The photo?” (apparently they’re “just asking questions” already)
“With Usama Dead, Will Obama Bet — or Cash Out?” (implying he’s all about the politics of it)
“Bush-Era Gitmo Tactics Helped Nail Bin Laden” (Goooooo torture!)
“Pakistan Denies Sheltering Bin Laden Amid Skepticism” (something everyone can agree on and even Pakistan knows is bullshit)
This is the most odious one - and needs to be pushed back on very strongly. Many stories have come out detailing the intelligence gathering, and all confirm that the courier’s name was not obtained under torture but rather under traditional interrogation. In fact, the name gathered under torture was incorrect.
Oh, please. The article in question simply says, “The Obama administration is weighing whether to release photos and video footage that show the body of Usama bin Laden, a decision that could quell conspiracy theories but also incite violence.” There’s nothing inappropriate about that, and it hardly amounts to “just asking questions.” You’re extrapolating way too much based on that simple question.
Did you even bother to read the subheadline? It says, “As the president takes victory lap over terror leader’s death, what does it mean for military ops abroad?” The story is about military tactics, not politics.
Now that, I’m willing to admit, is better evidence of a pro-Bush slant. That’s still not the same as outright spin though, and it’s a legitimate story. Failing to address this would be a fairly serious omission, especially in light of the controversial nature of such tactics. (Heck, we’re discussing that very same topic in another GD thread.)
Again, legitimate news. It’s neither pro- nor anti-Obama, nor is it pro- or anti-Bush. It’s a simple declaration of news, one that even Reutershas covered. As you yourself admitted, nobody seriously disagrees on this matter.
Once more, I’m not saying that Fox doesn’t have its bias. News agencies generally do. These particular headlines don’t do a very good job of demonstrating either outright spin or any “open and above-board goal,” though.
A lot of those deranged fanatics still think Barack Obama was born in Kenya. They will start saying that the whole thing is a hoax, and that Osama bin Laden is still alive.
Just the opposite, ISTM - the lefties are the ones always blaming the rise of ObL on Reagan. Because he gave the Stingers to the Afghani rebels that assisted them in driving the Soviets out.