Journalist's being kept from oil the oil spill?

[Damocles]

Pot...kettle.

Note the title. "Obama v. BP...The Damage Beyond the Spill". They weren't trying to make him appear "thoughtful", they wanted him to look depressed and alone.

Reuters criticized The Economist for using their photographer's picture this way. But nice attempt on your part to defend shabby journalistic ethics.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me all that much other than to make it funny. I'm not criticizing anything, I am simply pointing out that I think it is humorous. Your automatic defense mode isn't helping your "Chstiefan isn't a hack" case, it just makes it more obvious and the whole thread more hilarious.

 

[DamnYankee]

And you call me a hack.

Repubs were peeing their pants over photoshopped pix of Palin, but there's always justification if it done to Obama or another Dem.

Remember this NON-photoshopped cover, and the outrage it garnered by some on this board?

Photoshop notwithstanding, the two covers show bias of the magazines. Newsweek against Palin by making her look like a cheerleader, and The Economist for Obama by making him look pensive instead of some guy looking at the ground not knowing what to do.

Onceler is right- the reporters rationale- really an excuse- was lame as all hell.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I heard it referred to as Central Command, the unified command force alliance between BP and feds. Welcome to fascism.

 

[christiefan915]

Either way, it doesn't matter to me all that much other than to make it funny. I'm not criticizing anything, I am simply pointing out that I think it is humorous. Your automatic defense mode isn't helping your "Chstiefan isn't a hack" case, it just makes it more obvious and the whole thread more hilarious.

I never claimed to be non-partisan but "hack" is pushing it. You've just chosen to overlook all the times I criticized Obama and/or the Dems in favor of cherry-picking the times I've defended him.

 

[Canceled2]

Photoshop notwithstanding, the two covers show bias of the magazines. Newsweek against Palin by making her look like a cheerleader, and The Economist for Obama by making him look pensive instead of some guy looking at the ground not knowing what to do.

Onceler is right- the reporters rationale- really an excuse- was lame as all hell.

ya nailed it

 

[Damocles]

I never claimed to be non-partisan but "hack" is pushing it. You've just chosen to overlook all the times I criticized Obama and/or the Dems in favor of cherry-picking the times I've defended him.

Nah, I base it on how far you'll go to be an apologist on the times that you do choose to defend him, which is most of the time. I agree with Onceler more often than you, I generally don't consider him a "hack", the fact is I don't remember any important issue we've ever agreed on.

 

[christiefan915]

Nah, I base it on how far you'll go to be an apologist on the times that you do choose to defend him, which is most of the time. I agree with Onceler more often than you, I generally don't consider him a "hack", the fact is I don't remember any important issue we've ever agreed on.

You're wrong. What I defend him against are issues such as birthers, being a secret Muslim, terrorist ties with Ayers, hating whitey because of his ties to Rev. Wright, Marxist and socialist tendencies, elitism and all the other wingnut idiocies that are so pervasive in the blogosphere.

Many of the above you've bought into, so naturally you'd think that I'm a hack for pointing out the fallacies behind those issues.

Furthermore, you've used the words "hack" and "hacktacular" numerous times with Onceler, and that's the truth.

 

[Damocles]

You're wrong. What I defend him against are issues such as birthers, being a secret Muslim, terrorist ties with Ayers, hating whitey because of his ties to Rev. Wright, Marxist and socialist tendencies, elitism and all the other wingnut idiocies that are so pervasive in the blogosphere.

Many of the above you've bought into, so naturally you'd think that I'm a hack for pointing out the fallacies behind those issues.

Furthermore, you've used the words "hack" and "hacktacular" numerous times with Onceler, and that's the truth.

Yes, I did say "generally", I'm usually careful with the words I use. I use hacktakular and hack when I see it deserved. In this particular case, defending from some imaginary attack, it is definitely deserved. I think it is funny that the magazine felt the need to cut people out to make him look more solitary... I think it is funny that they thought showing off Sarah in running clothes made any difference. Both are funny, it isn't an attack on your hero...