That picture is of people posing for a photo, taken from a different angle. Pure liberal propaganda that should be beneath ThinkProgress, TPM, and the other outlets hyping the picture.
They’re the ones who decided to counter-protest in a manner that can reasonably be construed as intimidating (by showing up armed to the teeth). Even if they were milling around prior to this, weapons shouldered in an attempt to downplay their own intimidating posture, they’re the ones who decided to then pose like tough guys when asked to do so. “No, guys, let’s not pose like a terrorist militia, because there’s lots of cameras around and it will undoubtedly end up on the internet,” said no one at this event.
Oh - they just happened to decide to all meet at a parking lot, to take this picture? On a whim? And it was this particular parking lot, at this particular time, due to random chance?
Interesting.
Nonsense. Your characterization of them “posing as a terrorist militia” is presumably based on your not even having seen the actual photo.
More importantly, if the actual photo makes the same point, then they shoulda used it instead of the highly misleading one.
What does that have to do with using a highly misleading photo to mislead readers of ThinkProgress and TPM?
Ignore the photo, read the story:
I’m sure you’ll agree this at least qualifies as Stupid Gun News.
So what?
You have a problem with them bringing guns to a protest against this group. Fine. I’m not crazy about that particular expression of First and Second Amendment rights either.
But that doesn’t justify using a highly misleading photo to try to make that case.
You appear to have a deeply confused understanding of what the phrase “So what?” means; in this case it applies to that photo you keep bitching about.
Richard, did you go to their website? For whatever reason, there appears to be no mention of the incident, nor any “official” picture. Clearly, they are posing for a picture, just as you say. Does that have any bearing on the situation? What difference does it make whether or not the picture is taken from a different angle? Does that mean that the picture was taken from an unflattering angle for nefarious reasons?
About the only criticism that might be fairly leveled is the use of the word “brandishing”, which might be a bit strong, under the circumstances.
I am very circumspect about my liberal/lefty sources, in that I very much do not want to offer a cite and get busted for bogosity. I don’t even check into Democratic Underground, I’m already quite radical enough, thank you very much. I dimly have an impression that ThinkProgress might have stepped close to the line, but cannot recall the specifics. Talking Points Memo, however, has always maintained a strict compliance with my standards. And, like ThinkProgress and even* Daily Kos*, they always embed their links to their sources, which allows me to pretend that I read every newspaper, everywhere, every day.
They have a center-lefty viewpoint, to be sure, and I am not here to pretend non-partisan neutrality. But I will scold in the mildest possible terms your use of the word “propaganda”. A bit much, I think. Not quite the done thing, don’t you know, there’s a good fellow.
BG: So you’re in favor of “any means necessary” propaganda for people you disagree with?
No, I’m saying the photo in question is not “highly misleading.” And, in this story, is merely an illustration, not the news-hook. And that you are real flaming asshole idiot if this is the kind of thing you jump on.
Let me clarify my point, then. You keep repeating that this photo is “highly misleading.” I disagree. It accurately depicts a thing that happened. It’s obvious that they were posing. That they were posing for a picture and not to menace a target isn’t particularly meaningful considering their reason for being there was to intimidate…
The photo makes it seem like they’re trying to intimidate people by crouching beside a car with guns at the ready. In fact, they were posing for a completely innocuous group photo with kids.
This is the kind of shit I expect from Fox News, not Josh Marshall.
You also appear to have a deeply confused understanding of what the word “innocuous” means.
You appear to be unable to make a coherent argument.
I totally share your admiration for Mr. Marshall, not a day goes by I don’t check him out. May I politely suggest that you defer to that justified admiration? This is what he does, after all, and does well.
A group photo of adults and kids is anything but “innocuous” if the adults are holding firearms.
I think that’s a silly thing to say, and a standard you would not apply to many other contexts.
But leaving that aside, whether the group photo is fully innocuous or not, it is far more innocuous than the one being used for propaganda purposes (which effectively crops out the women and children, makes the crouched men look like they are ready for a fight instead of posing for a camera, suggests they are facing themselves at their opponents instead of a camera, and just generally portrays them as far more menacing than the actual photo).
It sure looks like you’re saying I shouldn’t criticize TPM because I generally like and agree with their work. Is that what you’re saying?
Well, now, slow down there, hoss. Check out their website. The point they are trying to make is that people should feel comfortable and at ease with open carry firearms. In a rural context, with long rifles, I would be inclined to accept that point as reasonable. Especially during hunting season. But Dallas ain’t the boonies. And a parking lot is not a deer lease.
I would be more persuaded if I were advised of any effort to “outreach”, to live up to their presumed purpose by introducing themselves in a friendly and open fashion. And while I can’t honestly claim to be certain that their purpose was intimidation rather than “In your face, gun grabbers, this is Sparta!..ah, Texas!”…I see no mention of any such effort.
But the set and setting is such that if their purpose was not to intimidate, but to present themselves as sensible adults, any reasonable adult would clearly see that their purpose is not served. Assuming, as I said, that their purported purpose is genuine.
That is because you are a dishonest idiot.