curmudgeon's tags:
Who's reading curmudgeon (60):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75279
 
Liberal rag the Atlantic Monthly has published photos of John McCain deliberately lit to make him look bad.
 
Of course, everyone with half a brain knows that underlighting is a typical horror movie tool. The photographer openly admits to deceiving McCain about how she was lighting his shoot.
 
Photography has now become a weapon of leftist propagandists. Unable to win the populace with their worthless agenda, the Democrats are now stooping to lying, deceit and manipulation to cast apsersions upon those who have an honest disagreement about governmental policy. It is yet one more low blow from the so-called fifth estate and is the very reason why "journalistic" publishing is going down the tubes. By participation in this partisan muckracking, journalists and their publishers are poisoning their own wells.
 
This kind of silliness will only backfire on the libs. The Atlantic Monthly and this photographer both have websites.
 
Let your voices be heard!


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • SeanRenaud said on Sep 15, 2008....
    Wait wait.  The side that was circulating pictures of Obama's trips to Kenya and wearing the native garbs is whining about a photo that wasn't even used? 
  • curmudgeon said on Sep 15, 2008....
    1. Obama was not purposely decieved by a photographer when he posed for his Kenya pictures. He donned that garb willingly and smiled for the camera. There's a huge difference between using a photo in circulation and outright lying to the subject.
     
    Liberals might think it's unethical to simply pass around and comment on someone's vacation photo, but apparently lying to the subject - especially a subject who disagrees with their vapid policy positions - is fair game.
     
    2. Atlantic Monthly didn't "use" the photo, but it's obviously been released to the public. That they would run even one photo by this liar and hack clearly shows what side of the political fence they're on, and that they are complicit in the photographer's deception.
     
    This stunt could possibly hurt journalistic and artistic photographers. Were I a politician or anyone who actually banks on my image, I wouldn't consent to a photo session without right of first refusal on photos and without vetting the photographer. I'd want to see her damn resume, her portfolio and her website well before meeting her. And if I found out that the publication had hired a partisan hack, man, I'd bar them access.
     
    What this photographer did was a disgrace to the profession.
  • SeanRenaud said on Sep 15, 2008....
    1.  Yes Obama was smiling for the camera and enjoying the local culture.  Both Bushes and I believe Clinton did the same.  However nobody was accusing them of being foreigners and secret Muslims at the time so it was still using a photo as a weapon.
     
    2. The photo wasn't used by Atlantic Monthly though.  What else do you want from them?
     
    I don't think I'd be a punk and bar access to anybody.  In my opinion that has been one of my serious gripes is that that Obama avoided Fox for so long.  You don't get to be a politician and avoid the other side, or rather it shouldn't be allowed.
     
    I'm not sure that calling the photographer a disgrace to the profession is accurate but that's an opinion and not one I care particularly to debate.

Comment on "Leftist Propagandist Uses Camera as a Weapon"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."...

Even Chris Mathews at MSNBC is starting to question Obama.

...
Oooh, Sunday was a red letter day!...