Posted on 06/25/2007 5:56:25 PM PDT by lowbridge
New York Times photographers, fair and balanced. How the New York Times sees the world -- and, more importantly, how the New York Times presents its view of the world to the public.
Amnesty supporters:
Amnesty opponents:
Even liberal writer Nicholas Von Hoffman noticed:
The other day The New York Times did a piece on the grass-roots opponents of the great compromise immigration bill. The accompanying photos showed a bunch of snaggletoothed retards living in trailers on the outskirts of town near the dump.
Thus the message is conveyed that if you want to identify yourself with right-thinking mainstreamers, you will be in favor of this bill. Episcopalians are, Harvard-educated reform Jews are, Roman Catholics who favor a woman’s right to choose are, so get with the respectables and let your legislator know you love this bill.
Amusingly (and ironically -- mostly), he then begins referring to immigration opponents as "snaggle people," lampooning the NYT's editorial position.
How liberal is Von Hoffman, by the way? Pretty liberal -- so liberal that Andrew Sullivan named his "Von Hoffman Award" for him, due to his prediction of a crushing Taliban victory in Afghanistan made just before they were routed.
His article is well-worth reading, though -- he's calling for an immigration pause, something that few except Nixon-goes-to-China lefties feel comfortable calling for, lest we be called "racist" by Lindsay Graham.
The NYT's brave new public editor (i.e., shill apologist) of course denies any editorial intent by illustrating opposition of to the bill as coming entirely from corncob-smokin' chicken-chokin' banjo-strokin' cousin-pokin' lynch-ropin' inbred hillbilly racist mutants:
I asked Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor in charge of photography, why her editors would choose to run a picture of a man missing a tooth when they had to know it could contribute to stereotypes about the kinds of people opposing the immigration bill. She said there had indeed been a discussion about Murphy’s appearance: how not to show his missing eye, which looked less flattering.
“I think it is discriminatory to say all toothless people who represent controversial positions shouldn’t be used,” she said. “This is a very big country that has a variety of styles and types.”
...
I think all those people who have been complaining about Murphy’s photo owe him an apology. They assumed that, because he was missing a tooth, he was missing a brain. They also assumed that editors at The Times shared their prejudices and were attempting to ridicule opponents of the immigration bill.
They were wrong on both counts.
What bull$%&#. I've seen some illegal immigrants, and let me tell you, they're not all comely. Some are pretty rough-looking, as a matter of fact. And yet New York Times photographers have this knack of presenting only the most telegenic and pull-the-hearstrings illegals to illustrate its pieces.
I suppose the NYT's public editor will rebut that that little guy doesn't have all of his teeth, either.
bump
yep...if their wimmin were better looking, I'd be happier
Is anyone surprised at this potrayal by the isolated lefty snots that occupy the newsrooms of the MSM—this is the way they really view the world outside their hive.
I hope Murphy sues the heck out of NYT.
They knew what they were doing.
This is too funny. They don’t even try to hide the bias anymore.
Could be a White House press conference.
they are staring in awe at an image of the Hildabeast in one of Teddy’s love handles...
ROFL!
I’d swear that is out of a movie. The tall guy with the beard reminds me of an actor.
In the first photo, notice the etherial light somehow shining only on the tall, distinguished-looking white man standing protectively behind a mother and son. Subtle, no?
Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
ethereal
Hate to tell you this.. Buthe the “Hick” photo was photoshopped.
the “black space” where his teeth is waaaaay to “black”
I’ll bet that toothless guy knows the difference between amnesty opponent”s” and amnesty opponent.
That’s interesting... now that I look at it more closely, it does look weird. Wouldn’t that be the icing on the cake if the NY Times was “hicking up” their photos?
Close Encounters of the Third Kind?
And except for that one little girl in the very front, it looks like everyone combed their hair just before the photo. Not one lock out of place on anyone!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.