RSSDid NYT Flop Obama Photo to Avoid Hitler-Like Salute?
Warner Todd Huston | July 26, 2008
The New York Times seems to know no ends that they won’t go to in order to help Barack Obama appear in an optimal light in this campaign for the next president. In a news analysis piece titled “Obama Heads for Paris and London,” the Times even went to pains to flop a photo the wrong way in order to… well, one can only assume that it was in order to make sure no one thought Obama was giving a Nazi salute to the crowd… in Germany!
I should warn that I am NOT saying that Obama was giving a Hitler salute. He was obviously just waving. What I AM saying is that the paper proactively went out of its way to be sure and nip any Hitler salute allusions in the bud to help their candidate get the best publicity possible.
I know, I know, it might seem as if I am reaching here, but take a look at the evidence I have before you make up your mind. Here I present a screen shot of the original page showing the shot of Barack Obama and a large crowd of Germans before him, and two examples to show what the times did to it in order to tidy it up to show Obama in the best light possible.
Screen shot of original page
Here is the page as it appears on the net when first posted.
… now a close up of that Obama/crowd image.
… and now the flopped version.
Well? What do you think? Obama butt covering again?
Contributor's website: http://thenma.org/blogs/index.php/huston
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
8 Responses to “Did NYT Flop Obama Photo to Avoid Hitler-Like Salute?”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
Could be a case of liberal guilt again. I don’t know. They try so hard to claim that Hitler wasn’t one of their fellow travelers that it is possible they are this hypersensitive to any liberal that they think might do something that could be associated with Hitler.
Hey Mr. Huston,
Your article inspired us to research more and we found some interesting things to further your conclusions. We tried to post all the information in a comment, but we had some technical difficulties so instead we posted it on our blog. Hope you enjoy!
http://comecheckthenoise.blogspot.com/2008/07/hey-mr-huston.html
What I do not understand is why you “folks at ComeChecktheNoise” felt the need to lie in your comment?
Your research does not “further” Mr. Huston’s “conclusions”. In fact it shows that perhaps some moron was just holding his banner backwards. Why lie? Did you think that we would not let you publish this further information like many left wing sites censor the truth?
I guess the ultimate point of this comment is to say if you would just tell the truth things always work out better.
Now you have put us in an awkward situation because on one hand you have truly added new information but on the other you have lied seemingly to get people to click on you link rather than just telling the truth. So now I, as the admin here, have to decide whether you should be banned for lying even though if you would have just told the truth everything would have been fine and your post would have been entirely acceptable had you just told the truth.
Yes, I discovered that Iw as way wrong about this story.
About an hour after I initially posted this story, I discovered a second photo that was a wider shot of the one the Times used. It clearly shows that the banner I thought might show that the picture was flopped was merely being held backwards by the folks in the photo.
The wider shot I found later had other banners being held way off to the right in the picture (and these were cropped out of the Times photo) so that they could be read by the photo’s viewer. Clearly I was wrong on my conjecture and that is why I pulled the photos I had originally posted.
I jumped the gun a little, I admit. After all, I write a LOT of stuff. I am bound to have a miss like this once in a while. But, I take full responsibility for being wrong in my initial conjecture on this one.
Hey J.J. Jackson,
We weren’t trying to be facetious in using the term “further”. The issue we came across when writing our comment was how to sound polite and not just flat out try to say “Hey, you’re wrong” to Mr. Huston as we did believe that it was respectable for him to deliver his inquiry on the photo in the first place. I guess in looking back, it was a “sly” term to use. But in the end, we did indeed “further” his research as he has admitted above and corrected a misunderstanding that anyone, including ourselves, may have had at first glance. It is fine by all means to delete our comment now that Mr. Huston has been able to view it and become aware. Once again, we apologize for any misunderstanding of the message that we were trying to put out and hope that the folks at American Conservative Daily understand. We also do appreciate the fact that people did take the time to view our blog and take our perspective seriously.
So now you are claiming that you were trying to “further” is “research”? That’s odd because you specifically said in your first comment:
“we found some interesting things to further your conclusions”
Now we have migrated from “conclusions” to “research”. Have you guys been going to Barack Obama school of hedging and denying you said what you said?
“Further” means “to help forward”. So your initial response meant that you were trying to “help forward” Mr. Huston’s “conclusions”. But that is not what you actually did. You actually presented evidence to change his conclusions.
Here is the simple conclusion. Don’t lie to get clicks from our readership. We don’t take kindly to that.
Perhaps you just chose the wrong word. That would be a much more believable explanation than what you just posted.
The folks at ComeCheckTheNoise:
That is fine. I think that you just chose the wrong word to describe what you were doing. But you have to admit that you could have just posted that information here rather than trying to drive traffic to your site. Which is what makes it look very suspicious.
Hey J.J. Jackson,
We appreciate your understanding of our misuse of words. We assure you that we did indeed try to post all of our information on this page, but when we hit submit comment, we were given an error message and found that all we had said hadn’t been saved. Instead, we decided it would be a lot easier and safer to post on our blog to avoid having to write our information all over again. Of course, we do not mind viewers on our blog, but we have no desire to drive negative attention to our blog. We really do appreciate your understanding though and the manner you have handled our comments.
To the Libertarian Prince,
We won’t continue to argue over semantics, but all we can do is try to assure you that we didn’t have alterior motives in our choice of words and hope you understand. In response to your “Barack Obama’s school of…”, this has never been a liberal vs. conservative issue, nor would we prefer to make it one. Our only objective in writing our blog post was to simply correct Mr. Huston’s claim, which he has acknowledged early on. We thank you for taking us seriously and appreciate your feedback.