Michelle Malkin in this article displays the contrast in reporting by the New York Times on the GOP efforts to enlist Christian voters as compared to its softball coverage and cheerleading of President Clinton’s speech at the Riverside Church. The following from the Time’s coverage is unbelievable (well maybe not for the NYT).
"Former President Bill Clinton offered a hard-hitting attack against the Republican Party yesterday, telling worshipers gathered at Riverside Church that President Bush and the Republicans are distorting John Kerry’s war record in Vietnam. ‘Sometimes I think our friends on the other side have become the people of the Nine Commandments,’ Mr. Clinton said. ‘It is wrong to bear false witness.’ "
The Presidential Perjurer himself attacking others for false witness? I wonder if he wagged his finger at the congregation. Even funnier is that he talks about missing commandments for someone that has no problem with "Thou shall not kill" when it comes to the unborn and has not exactly been the model for faithful marriage. Regardless though I pray for him and wish him well as he faces quadruple bypass heart surgery today.
And speaking of media bias. Lane Core Jr. makes a brilliant observation on the trends in Time magazine covers. He illustrates his point effectively with the covers themselves and this can truly be categorized as coloring the news.
7 comments
Am I correct to assume that the point is the use of color vs B&W? I work in advertising, and I believe that B&W is not always a negative thing; it can be very powerful, though.
What concerns me more about the covers is that the Democrats are always shown ‘engaging’ the viewer through direct eye contact; while Bush is ‘ignoring’ the viewer (no eye contact.) In my opinion, this is a stronger signal of affinity/separation than the use of color. In the corner photos, all the women are in color, but the eye contact variable follows the party line.
Good points Mark.
This is nothing new to a news person. Look through the hard news pages of any major daily in America. Photos of liberals – and other people the press wants us to sympathize with – always look thoughtful, kind, or visionary (notice how many of them are looking up and off into the sky). Conservatives and enemies (Saddam, e.g.) look either like doofuses – Bush, usually – or angry and hateful. Remember the classic photo of Hitler with hand upraised, ranting at the crowd? In a lot of cases, you can actually superimpose the conservative politician’s picture over that and see the parallel. It’s a subtle trick that nobody in the media wants to admit to.
(I’m in the news business myself, and although I’ve never heard anybody acknowledge it overtly it, I’ve seen it done.)
If so, that still leaves Republicans about seven commandments in the lead, Bill, seeing as how the only thing your political career hasn’t featured is the manufacture and worship of a graven image.
“the only thing your political career hasn’t featured is the manufacture and worship of a graven image.”
I wouldn’t be too sure of even that, SAM … remember that St. Hillary and the Politics of Meaning profile in the NYT Magazine?
And I was just reminded about Hillary describing her seances and conversations with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt (with no mention of a Ouija board). I believe the exact words from Exodus 22:18 are “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Victor, can you think of a justification to apply that last from Exodus to my ex-wife? I’d be forever grateful. 🙂