Posted on 10/26/2005 10:36:55 AM PDT by Jalapeno
Anybody see the difference between the two photos below?
-- OJ Time Mage Mug Shot Pic Left Out For Blogger's Bandwith --
You guessed it. The Time Magazine version on the right was deliberately darkened to make OJ look more menacing, because as any liberal journalist knows, black is bad. The whole black community was up in arms about this scandal – as well they should have been. Under the heat of protest, Time issued an apology.
Now, Anybody see the difference between the two photos below?
You guessed it. The USA Today version on the right was deliberately altered to make Condi Rice look more menacing. Notice how the whites of the eyes are highlighted to make her BLACK eyes look BLACKER and HATEFUL. The doctored photo is here on USA Today's site (they'll probably take it down with some heat). You have to look overseas here to see an unbiased version. Under the heat of protest, will USA Today apologize? Or, don't they care about racism when directed at "house Niggas" like Condi? Rathergate, OJgate, now Condigate! What will the MSM think of next?
And if anybody would like to see why I think this is a scandal, take a look at an enlarged version of the photos that I put into photoshop and animated. This is scandalous stuff folks!
This is embaressing. I've forgotten how to access Google's archives of web sites. Anyone able to assist?
F__k the MSM!
"Who said they did it because she's black?"
It was suggested in the original post to which this thread is responding.
"Wow! A seer, who can look into the souls of others, even if they're in another state."
I said probably, and the context makes clear that I was just speculating. The main point was that this was not a racial thing, as suggested by the original post of this thread.
"Yeah, it's WAY too much to ask a newspaper to just print a freakin' picture, without doctoring it."
That actually happens routinely. The question is how they do it. And in this case it was obviously awful.
"Agreed, they did it because she's tied to the administration."
That may well be true. The original post on this thread should have framed it that way, instead of saying "Blacks were up in arms when it happened to O.J., so why aren't they now?"
Shhh! Geez! Don't give The administration any ideas or, before you know it, they'll try to force a guest appearance on the show - and THIS season is already hurtin' as it is!
Whoof! Yum!
USAToday is wholly run by Dims..in other
words: Socialists, racists, drug addicts,
drunks, child abusers, child molestors,
roofies rapists, militant homosexuals,
fascist lesbians, Castro lovers, america haters,
spawn of filthy hippie pig, baby genociders of
the 60's and their souless spawn...
That just makes you proud to be an American, don't it?
Certanly makes me want to hoist it up on the flagpole...
Oh yah. Several of my extremities are saluting right now. She is just so damned cute.
That's right. They did it because she is a Republican.
Me too.
Which may well be the case -- so I wonder why the original post in this thread puts a racial spin on it.
Sorry, I don't pick up the racial spin to which you refer.
You don't pick up the racial spin? OK, not sure where to start with that one. All I can think is that you're being deliberately obtuse. The post makes a direct comparison between this photograph distortion and that of an O.J. Simpson photo years ago. It says OJ's photo was changed to make him "look more menacing, because as every liberal reporter knows, black is bad." (Stated ironically, of course.) The post then says "the whole black community was up in arms about this scandal," and Time subsequently apologized. Then it shows the distorted Condi photo and wonders whether the media will "care about racism when it is directed at 'house Niggas' like Condi."
The use of the word "racism" suggested to me that the person who posted was citing the concept of "racism." Maybe that's too big a leap.
Spin? If there was any spin, it was the press trying to spin the Simpson story to fit the theme that was buzzing around in their busy little heads. They’ve done the same thing with Limbaugh, Cheney, and a host of others. In the media’s mind, Simpson was guilty. That justified making Simpson’s look ‘menacing’. Nothing racial about it. Just the herd mentality of a brainless press responding to their glandular urges. To be sure, the black community was convinced there were racial overtones, but why not? After thirty years of racial bombardment from both the media and Democrats, what could be expected from any group that refuses to think for themselves.
So far as I know, the 'House Niggra' bit stemmed from a vicious personal attack against Colin Powell launched by Harry Belafonte a couple of years back. Belafonte didn’t exactly use the term ‘House Niggra,’ being too much of a coward to go that far, but he gave too fulsome a description to leave a doubt in anyone’s mind as to his meaning. The rapidity with which the idea was picked up by all the Democrat talking heads and media sycophants, and the fact that it was extended to apply to any Black Republican, indicates to me that it was all along meant to be a calculated Democrat talking point, and Belafonte simply had the good fortune (in his mind) to be the first to use it. For that matter, I don’t know that Belafonte was the first. It may have been that I just happened to first hear it from him.
The tactic was used with particular viciousness in several ‘yas suh, yas suh’ political cartoons launched against Condi Rice when Bush appointed her Secretary of State. And that brings us up to this latest low-life little venomous stunt. Sorry, but no, I don’t see the ‘racial spin’ in naming these despicable slanders for what they are, or for calling their authors the contemptible bottom-feeders they are.
In all honesty this doesn't seem like much compared to most of the actions of the MSM. So they have a copy of photoshop. Big deal. You should be a hundred times more worried about made up stories like those at the Times and Rathergate, their pushing of the radical homosexual agenda, and their editorial slant.
"orry, but no, I don’t see the ‘racial spin’ in naming these despicable slanders for what they are, or for calling their authors the contemptible bottom-feeders they are."
You're trying to talk your way around the fact that the original poster called it racism, which is the point to which I referred.
Your post #94: "I wonder why the original post in this thread puts a racial spin on it."
I don't consider an accurate accusation of racism as 'putting a racial spin on it.' In the Simpson case, I don't see the story as racist, at all. In the other instances, you certainly won't get my agreement that the poster was engaging in 'racial spin'. I see a considerable difference between a legitimate accusation of racism and putting a 'racial spin' on a story.
If I failed to make myself clear, then I offer my apologies. If you're looking for a fight, go play with the other children and leave me alone.
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.