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 womans 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 Murphys 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 shouldnt 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 Murphys 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.
No kiddin, now if it were Russian women? Look out.
No question in my mind...
Just to make sure any unpleasant facial features are highlighted or subdued appropriately, the righteous illegals are photographed in the dark and the evil jingoist is photographed in full sun.
I looked in image editing software, and I’m willing to bet it’s altered. If you look at any other black part of the picture, such as the bottom of the light touching the front of the flag, you can see other pixel colors within the black area. The area of the missing teeth is a solid black color.
The Senate and Jorge make me want to pull my teeth out.
The guys feel uncomfortable antime they have to go beyond the Appalachians or south of Chapel Hill—their country. Not for nothing do they call the land between the Coasts as “Fly-over Countrry.”
I flipped it to Drudge... we’ll see what happens...
The NYT will start selling more papers only when the Democrats start slashing each other's throats. Everybody will want to read about that..
There are a lot of working poor without dental insurance who cannot afford more than an extraction which costs a $100 whearas a root canal and crown can easily top $2000 or an implant $2500. Few people choose to appear toothless,it is usually an obvious sign of their financial status.
>Hate to tell you this.. Buthe the Hick photo was photoshopped.<
Not to mention the fact that the photo looks to have been made with a really wide angle lens, perhaps a fisheye, and a very odd angle.
Did the photographer mean to make the dwelling behind that man look as much like a trailer as possible? And, why are the man’s hands the focal point of the image, making him look so distorted?
They actually PAID this twerp to take this pitcher???
It's not what they're looking at, it's their inner grace and purity shining out.
BTW: Right now, I don't care about the coffee in my cup, I care about the damn illegal in my garage...
If we were talking Colombian or Persian girls however...
What? You have something against squatty, fat women with moustaches? The men leave much to be desired, too, no doubt. Yeah, they’re a rough bunch.
And I can’t tell you how many Latinos I’ve seen wheeled into the trauma center with gunshot wounds, no doubt suffered while doing the work that law-abiding Americans won’t do...thankfully.
“he then begins referring to immigration opponents as ‘snaggle people,’ lampooning the NYT’s editorial position.”
Yeah, having or not having teeth is now more important then having or not having a Country.
... And that evil American flag that only a snaggle tooth would dare put in front of his house.
There’s a lot more to these photos then meets the undiscerning eye.
It’s NOT simply ‘bias’, it’s well orchestrated propaganda — make no mistake!
Just say NO to Illegal Alien Amnesty!! Keep calling!! Its NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It’s not solid black.
Secondly, the photo is taken in the shade, which makes shadowed areas look very dark. Just look at his pants on the right. Besides, if you knew any toothless people, you’d know that area can appear very dark under various conditions.
They didn’t need to photoshop the image.
Images are about emotions, just like advertising. The Times knew exactly what feelings that image would elicit, yet still claim anyone coming to that conclusion is biased- quite clever on their part, and also quite transparent.
This is the way the Times views anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them. I don’t read the Times, I don’t think anyone else should read the Times, and the World would be a better place if the Sulzbergers were kicked out.
I’m surprised they didn’t photo-shop a banjo in his lap, and a confederate flag.
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.