Bush, in ‘Brat’islava
 Bratislava. That’s where Bush Was on 2/25/2005. But the question is, where was Joe Klamar? He was in the exact spot needed to take a picture of Bush so that the word “Brat”, but not “islava” would show up behind him. What is this? I guess the only thing I can think of to call this would be “suggestive photojournalism”. Surely this wasn’t an accident? For that reason, I believe there to be quite a bit of symbolic representation in this photo. This happened with Clinton when he was president, but it seems to happen with Bush with a bit more frequency. Perhaps this show’s the media’s hand–Perhaps they’re more liberal than conservative, on the whole. Bush went to Bratislava to meet Putin to talk about Bush’s vision against terrorism, and probably to talk a bit about getting spent fuel rods from Iran. Photo Credit: Joe Klamar |
Filed under: News by ramdac |
February 28th, 2005 at 2:31 am
I think that its very funny to see this. I’m not saying, nor implying that King George II is a brat, but, just saying that its funny. This photographer did a top notch job in my opinion, and if it wasn’t planned, then thats one hell of an accidental photo!
February 28th, 2005 at 8:10 am
The guy has the right to do this, but he loses all credibility in the process.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:17 am
I wouldn’t say he loses all credibility, because it may in fact be an accident, but You’d think he’d have thought of this.
You never know, someone could have edited his photo to crop out the other parts of the picture so that only this would show–You never know where this sucker’s been.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Well, I agree, it could have been crop editing… but I guess that depends on who put the photo out to the public.
February 28th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
It was the Associated Press (AP)
February 28th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Being a reporter, I can assure you a photograph of this nature wouldn’t be published under most circumstances (my editor, for instance, is paranoid about even the tiniest bit of cleavage appearing)–but since it’s G.W. Bush, I have no doubt it was intentional.
I’ve already discussed my personal experiences proving the liberal media bias is no myth.
I’m not saying most reporters are purposefully biased–but I am saying their views do have an unconscious influence over their reporting (but this photo may be an intentional exception).
It’s funny–the big thing in journalism today is their supposed need for more diversity in the newsroom (which explains why a white guy like me has been passed over in favor of a black person with no journalism training whatsoever—like at The News Star in Monroe, Louisiana, for instance).
It’s really too bad that so-called diversity in the newsroom doesn’t apply to a diversity of political views as well (I’m the only conservative at my paper——-I stand corrected—there is a conservative working in the graphics department).
February 28th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Say Ramdac, doesn’t this incident remind you of the “KKK” homecoming float picture published in our high school newspaper our freshmen year?
February 28th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
You know, in a way, it does.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:36 am
I read an article on Slate shortly before the Presidential election where different employees were polled on who they were voting for.
46 for Kerry; 5 for Bush; 1 for Michael Badnarik (Libertarian); and 1 for David Cobb (Green)
I find this amazing and revealing. I will not bash Slate for letting their opinions be known. I respect it. In fact, no media outlet can be 100% objective; there will always be some subjectivity to it. These people have opinions, and their opinions will affect their writing. One of my biggest complaints about the media is that they go around claiming to be objective, when, honestly, it is impossible to be completely objective. We all have our own motives and reasons for doing things an agenda that spurs us on. We will interpret events to fit into the way we all want to see things. This affects how a writer writes what words he chooses as well as the types of stories he chooses to cover. That’s just human nature. I am still waiting for some news organization or reporter to be honest and say, “Hey, I’m a liberal, but I’m doing my best to cover the news.” Most outlets, however, say, “I am a-political. Therefore, I am trustworthy.” Unfortunately, this just isn’t true. This is why I respect these guys for coming out and supporting their guy, even if I disagree with them.
Okay, so now that I’ve applauded them and handed them my respect, I will now hammer on them.
They basically do not understand the concept of biased.
Imagine a company that hired 51 employees, and of those employees, 46 were men and 5 were women. Or how about 46 whites and 5 blacks? The point is, the bias does not come purely from reporting - as I said earlier, no reporter will be completely unbiased. However, the real bias comes in the hiring practices. Almost any political poll out there shows that the nation is pretty much split fifty-fifty between political candidates, yet, at Slate, about 95% of the employees polled (forgive my math if it’s off) are voting for Kerry. Why are conservative so under-represented? Is it just a lack of conservative applicants, or something deeper? A subconscious (or conscious??) stone-walling of them, perhaps. Whether it is purposeful or not, it is very revealing of the media as a whole.
March 1st, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Those are very good points indeed.
I must reveal my own reasons for posting this picture. It was partly to expose the bias of the photographer, partly because I thought it was funny, and partly in hopes of spawning discourse on bias in the media.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Josh
The woman at work analogy fit pretty good with your post; however if a company had 5 of 51 employess that were black, they would actually be ahead of the national average and pretty close to the african American percentage in this country.
I also read a story about why so many in the media tend to lean left. They say that it is a major in college that liberals are more likely to take. Conservative thinking students tend to move toward business majors because the understand a free market is better for everyone.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Or, in my case, a (lone) conservative in journalism, not business, because my English grades were far superior to my (atrocious) math grades, LOL!
March 1st, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Chris,
I’m better in English than math also. Unfortunately, math is a dull, grueling process, that I prefer to not waste my time in. I know that in some careers math is important and advanced math is needed but in most its not. However, I still think its better to learn advanced math and not need it, than to be more ignorant than the average person.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Geez, we’re REALLY getting off topic here, but let me assure you that no amount of tutors and applying myself (hard) in math ever generated more than a D- for me.
We each have our own skills and talents, but I’d love to go back to my old high school and ask my math teachers when, exactly, I’ll be using algebra and geometry, because, at the age of 27, I sure as hell haven’t used them yet.
*Another fact about media bias—-polled journalists consistently say they vote 9-1 in favor of a Democratic presidential candidate.
I think that bespeaks a serious problem, seeing as how the Republicans and Democrats got about a 50-50 percentage margin in the past two presidential elections.
It all goes back to the lack of intellectual diversity in the media.
Bookmark http://www.mrc.org for daily examples of outrageous liberal media bias.
Also read Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS News correspondent (and self-professed liberal) who recognizes the problem, and hammers Dan Rather hard for being so damned biased.
Great reads!
Andy Rooney is on record as saying Rather is “transparently liberal.�
Give a reporter a forum to discuss their views (where objectivity rules don’t apply) and 90 percent of them will espouse a liberal perspective.
Every time!
Don’t believe me–watch an old episode of this week with David Brinkley, where Cokie Roberts (which Louisiana takes no pride in) and Sam Donaldson are spouting off one liberal view after another—they had to go out and find George Will, a columnist, just so they would have a conservative on their panel.
Watch the McLaughlin Group, where your favorite Newsweek and Time JOURNALISTS do the same, only to have conservative COLUMNISTS like Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley brought in to balance it all out.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Most of the time we get off topic Chris, so its okay I guess. Not the first time.
March 2nd, 2005 at 7:49 am
Yeah, as evidenced by my Prince Charles tampon quote a few weeks ago.
Speaking of media bias, a lot of journalists are unhappy about bloggers such as Matt Drudge and others, but I have no problem with them.
In fact, I see them as a positive.
If the media is supposed to be the fourth branch of government, keeping the other three in line, who is going to keep the media in line?
If it weren’t for bloggers, the truth about the GW. Bush National Guard letter (Dan Rather’s pathetic attempt to influence last fall’s election) may never have been revealed.
March 2nd, 2005 at 8:04 am
Media oulets hate the bloggers because they know I can get my information from them without watching the Liberal people on TV.
When I watched Dan Rather almost cry when Bush won the 1st election, I lost all respect for the man.
In my mind, Andy Rooney is a transparent Liberal as well. Now most of these liberal media guys are separating themselves from Dan Rather because well you know he lied.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:51 am
I have no idea who Dan Rather is… So I’m gonna do a little research on him so I know what your talking about. So I’m a little less ignorant.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:53 am
Dan Rather is an anchor… nm I know who he is, I just didn’t hear about his almost cry I guess.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:56 am
Yeah, another thing is the bloggers, and Drudge, can get informational out pretty quick. For example, a couple of weeks back, when all the news organizations were reporting about the suppossed soilder abducted in Iraq, Drudge broke that it was a doll, not a person.
I believe Drudge also broke the Lewinsky story.
Oddly enough, though, he hasn’t posted a single article about the BTK guy being arrested.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Yep, the downfall of the mainstream media began when Drudge broke the Lewinsky story (which Newsweek would not).
Maybe Drudge, like me, had never heard of BTK until now.
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Well, mabey he didn’t post about BTK, because he didn’t think many would respond about it… Just because everyone talks about it alreaday makes it less interesting, but let me make point that it doesn’t make it less horrific.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:50 am
I dont really think the BTK is a very big story, unless the horrible man gets off. Since I read that he was admitting to many of the killings I kind of turned off the story.
Ditto,
You know Dan Rather ran a story a right before the election using phony documents to hurt President Bush. He can lie all he wants, that is why he is stepping down.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Joey,
I didin’t know that either… What do you mean he’s stepping down? Like resigning? What kind of documents are you talking about?
March 3rd, 2005 at 10:06 pm
12. Chris on Tuesday 01 March, 03:11:44 PM (#1994)
Rank: Corporal
http://www.geocities.com/right_wing_southerner/
Or, in my case, a (lone) conservative in journalism, not business, because my English grades were far superior to my (atrocious) math grades, LOL!
You’re not alone, Chris! There’s also, Jeff Gannon!
March 3rd, 2005 at 10:46 pm
BTK may not be a really “big” story, but I do find it an interesting one. That someone could get away with that stuff for so long . . . and then when he reappeared like that. Also, the fact that he was able to dupe enough people to be president of his church board . . . I’m fascinated by this stuff.
Ditto, Rather and the gang came out with some apparent “proof” that Bush skipped out on his National Guard duty. This has been a rumor that has been floating around for years, but there was never any proof to back it up. So it made it seem like a big story . . . .
Unfortunately, the documents were phony. Any serious reporter looking for the truth would have easily found that out with just a minimum bit of research to verify them. Rather, who was at the time anchor of CBS evening news, has stepped down from that position to avoid being fired, like most everyone else associated with the story was.
March 4th, 2005 at 12:24 am
Oh okay, I had heard the rumors, but didn’t know that this wa te reason for them… Dan Rathers is a good reporter, just he didn’t have a good source, or just wanted to get the ball flying. Start a few phony attacks against the man he didn’t vote for. Thank you for informing me osh!
March 4th, 2005 at 6:25 am
Yeah, Rather was too busy speaking at Democratic Party fundraisers and telling Bill and Hillary Clinton “how great” they both are to do thorough enough research.
But even if he purposefully lied, that’s okay according to his moral code, seeing as how he told Bill O’Reilly that lying is okay (at the height of Bill Clinton’s impeachment).
March 4th, 2005 at 6:54 am
There is one lady that got fired, and she swears that she told them all before the story broke. If her story is true, then Dano lied bigger than Dallas.
It is one thing to lie, but It is another story to try to infuence an election
March 4th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Chris….
“that’s ok?”….
Remember, he got fired.
March 4th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
Actually, to my understanding, he didn’t get fired but did “step down” before the firings took place.
He’ll still be anchor of 60 Minutes.
March 5th, 2005 at 8:27 am
As I recall, he announced his retirement well before this incident ever took place, as being sometime in 2005 or 2006 ………but let’s just say what happened last fall did accelerate the process of his stepping down.
March 5th, 2005 at 11:17 am
He stepped down to save the embarassment of getting fired. I threw a party that day because I listen to CBS evening news on my way home (AM 540, Monroe), and I am tired of hearing him on my radio.
March 5th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Joey, it sounds to me like you need satelite radio……….FOX News Radio may be an option.
Is Moon Griffon still on in the Monroe market on 1440 AM, out of Monroe.
He’s Monroe’s version of Rush.
March 7th, 2005 at 7:01 am
Yeah, Moon is still on. He is on 540 also.
I like his show because he deals heavily with state politics.
March 7th, 2005 at 11:03 am
540 is good though.
Alan Nathan from 9-12
I get Bill O’ Reilly from 12-1
Local stuff from 1-2
then Sean Hannity from 2-5
then I get Rather.
Rush comes on 710, but at the same time as O’Reilly, so I dont listen.
March 7th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
When I lived in Ruston, I couldn’t even get reception from an AM station out of Monroe, thanks to that damned KRUS station out of Ruston taking up the entire AM bandwidth.
I even complained about it to Dan Hollingsworth, the owner of that station, but my complaint fell on deaf ears.
Bill O’Reilly is good, but while he opposes gay marriage, I recently heard him come in favor of civil unions, which is just as stupid.
You want to hear a REAL conservative?
1440 used to carry a black conservative named Ken Hamblin, who was more conservative than Rush and Hannity combined.
March 8th, 2005 at 6:54 am
I believe they play Hamblin on AM 710 now.
Bill O’ Reilly has always said he isnt a true conservative, that is probably why he has become so popular.
March 8th, 2005 at 9:57 am
My favorite Ken Hamblin quote:
“Let’s round up all the child molestors, put them up against a wall and blow their brains out.”
Bill O’Reilly is too busy having phone sex with his interns and real sex with skanky hookers to know what being a real conservative is about (read TheSmokingGun.com’s copy of the infamous lawsuit, if it’s still there)
March 9th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
I like the sound of his voice… Why exactly don’t you like him Joey? He may not be the best reporter, with information and accurate sources, but when it is he does a good job.
I guess voice isn’t everything though, becuase their are plenty of reporters who studder and say “like”, or “um” a lot and still can give accurate news reports.
March 9th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
My goD!!! You guys are beating this piece of fluff into the ground! Ever hear of beating a dead horse? What’s the big deal? The word BRAT behind Bush’s head? I would never call him anything that nice. And no, I don’t believe I’m alone. Get something with a little bite to it up on the board. Maybe Josh or Chris can write a crisp little piece on the state of politics!
March 10th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
I see that Ramdac has gone the way of the Bush Administration and are now in the business of blocking what they don’t want to hear or see. Have you revoked my friend, Bewick Cory’s privilage to post under his name?
Dr. Marlon Rene
Nashville, TN
March 11th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Bewick Cory,
We do beat most conversations into the ground, mostly do to the fact that we get off subject…
You also say that, “Maybe Josh or Chris can write a crisp little piece on the state of politics!”. Well, sorry Bewick, but we leave all the flattering, flashy, much more exciting peices to talk about to you. You do seem to know much more about everything to everyone.
Just because a post doesn’t sound that exciting to you, doesn’t mean its not to someone else, to me… your stuff isn’t all that “crisp” no “bite” to it, just boring chitter. Nothing mind blowing.
Anonymous,
Why do you ask if Ramdac has revoked Bewick Cory’s privilage to post under his name? I don’t think that Ramdac wants to “censor” anything a person really wants to say on his site. Their are plenty of things he doesn’t agree with but are posted everyday.
I think he’s created this site to allow people to post their own thoughts and opinions on here. As his title goes “eramus audacis, to be bold and courageous” I think his title at least gives proof to his plan when he created this site, for all to speak their mind, “to be bold and courageos” with their opinions, and to speak out about them. I think Bewick has just as much privilage to post as anyother person does, and I believe Ramdac views it the same way. (As long as sources and such are accurate, I don’t think he has a problem).
Thats why we get into these little debates, to share our thoughts.
March 11th, 2005 at 8:22 am
I am confused as a well, Didnt Bewick just post under his name. I could have swore I just saw a post. hum…
See Dr. Marlon Rene, Bewick went on vacation so therefore there is a spell where he didnt post. I assume you saw this as censorship, but really you just didnt know the facts.