&heellip; AS IN BALDSPOT…This is just too damned funny!THIRDWAVEDAVE tipped me off about a "gaffe" at CNN earlier today, where they stuck a giant black "X" over Vice President Cheney while he was making a live speech!Real Teen at Stop the ACLU is reporting that The Drudge Report is currently running with this story as its header. No one can seem to make out the tiny black words superimposed over parts of the picture.Some people are {GASP!} suggesting that it may not have been an accident!I mean, come on, folks! It's not like the media have done something like this before… Or have they?Hmmmm…******************************UPDATE: Ian at The Political Teen has video, slowed down to make the repeatedly appearing (for 1/15th of a second at a time) "X" easily visible.I'm not the only one remembering past media bias silliness….Mary Katherine Ham at Hugh Hewitt recalled THIS little gem (also courtesy of CNN).Curt at Flopping Aces recalled Reuters' zoomed-in and "enhanced" potty break note… and, of course, this lovely USA Today photo, which we had a whole lot of fun with a few weeks ago…Don't even get me started on the TANG Documents!Again, I must shrug and ask: What media bias??? &heellip;

I'd like to know why Hershorn considered this note ‘interesting'?

Well, he was right: we are talking and joking about it.

That would make sense then… Cause it's obviously altered, but I was wondering how a photoshoped image would make it onto their servers…

they claim at first to have no idea of the content – but then they photoshop it to make it more legible! Isn't that enough? They were caught in a lie!

And what master of the English language could they possibly be if they can't decipher THAT chicken scratch!

Always have a problem with someone trying to sway my opinion when they cannot use the language in which they speak properly. Not quite killing the messenger – but it sure makes me question the message.

I hope the stars of Bloggers vs Dan Rather do a once over.
Is the block print typical of Bush samples on file ?
Is that Bush's hand ? It seems less than tanned.
The printing is quite nice and clear, almost of sampler quality. Are there other images of Bush with the paper clamp and clutter to place it ?

Perhaps they will prove that Bush never goes to the bathroom.

Sorry; the parallels are too cute.

I realize this is your blog, Rob, but that is an unconscionably misleading headline you've used for this story.

Why? It was photoshopped, after all. They admitted it. Reuters used the term "photoshopped" themselves.

What would you have put for the title?

Bush Note Burnd Down?

Honestly, I'm not sure what better headline to use…

Jesus, to hear you tell it I sit at my desk twirling my mustache while hatching plots to further the right wing agenda of the KARL ROVE!

Manipulation need not be an active exercise. Look no further than Bill Keller for the proof of that (unless you think HE sits at HIS desk twirling HIS mustache while hatching plots to further the LEFT wing agenda).

Well, here's one Ryan.

Here's another.

And another.

And another.

And another (though this one doesn't really involve Reuters itself as an agency, but does illustrate what its editors are like).

Anyway, my point is illustrated.

Fine, manipulate was a bad word. The enhanced it.

Happy now?

It was still photoshopped.

The photo was manipulated in Photoshop. The headline was dead-on accurate.

Were a post where I was complaining about media bias I have a feeling that you'd be saying, "Oh come on! There's no bias here, the photo was photoshopped."

"You have the power to end this!!!" -Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

Drudge's headline:

REUTERS has acknowledged Bush 'Potty Note' photo was enhanced via Photoshop…

Good job, Rob: You're a bigger reactionary than Drudge!!!

I certainly don't think there's any malicious intent involved. There's certainly nothing malicious in revealing that the President has to go to the bathroom and is careful about when he gets up and does it at a diplomatic conference. In fact, I think its funny and humanizing.

I don't like that Reuters lied about the photoshopping, but there's certainly nothing malicious here.

I'm an asshole for pointing out that Matt Drudge has a more reasonable headline than you? Is Drudge an asshole too?

Perhaps I feel it's indicative of a larger trend?

Rob: You intentionally wrote a misleading headline. I called you on it. You refused to change it.

Who is the real zealot again, mon frère?

You intentionally wrote a misleading headline. I called you on it. You refused to change it.

I intentionally wrote a perfectly acceptable headline that accurately reflected what Reuters did to the photo.

You need to grow up a little, pal.

Ryan, I would never be able to explain it to your satisfaction, so I'm not going to try. I've offered my examples, you dismissed them. I think they're compelling, but whatever. We'll agree to disagree.

Nice punt. Why not tell me why my analysis of your examples is wrong? I critiqued and responded to your allegations of bias – far from "dismissing" them, as you're attempting to do to me.

Ryan, I would never be able to explain it to your satisfaction, so I'm not going to try. I've offered my examples, you dismissed them. I think they're compelling, but whatever. We'll agree to disagree.

All I wanted to know was why Reuters is biased. You can't or won't support your claim so you attack me instead of my argument.

I don't cuss at you. I don't yell at you. I put up my arguments and am consistently called loony, out-of-touch, a moonbat, and have frequently been told to F-off. I'm not the kind of person you want to debate? You're the one getting tired of the vicious rhetoric?

I've called a few posts here idiotic (most notably the one where you and Seth laughed about moving the New Orleans residents to a volcano), but I don't go personal. I attack your arguments. You relish in attacking the person.

Your callous reaction to the storm victims consisted of laughing and saying it was their own damn fault. I thought this very idiotic and simplistic and said so. Telling Katrina evacuees their city was destroyed because they shouldn't have been living there in the first place is childish.

No Ryan, I am saying that if you choose to live somewhere it is not the responsibility of everyone else to bail you out when things go badly. That is my point. To Expect help is childish and irresponsible. Of course the rest of us will offer help, but to DEMAND it of us, is uncool.

And you just did the same exact thing – label me an inferior lefty with no positive or worthwhile views and disregard me.

As I keep saying, I disregard you because you refuse to see what is placed in front of you in even a SMALL way. You claim that every single one of Rob's examples (and I'll note that the post was not about BIAS) is faulty… then how can you have a debate? It's like arguing with a blind man about the color of a car… It gets OLD, and frustrating. Find SOMETHING, ANYTHING to agree with him on and you'd find it easier to discuss stuff. Your endless disagreements and constant Python-esque arguments get redundant and senseless.

Here, I am not dismissing you, but pointing out how your technique SUCKS. If you can't see the difference, then we're done talking.

But, since neither of you appear at all interested in telling me why Reuters is biased, the original reason for this discussion,

It wasn't the original reason for the discussion. But come back and tell me that it was… that's your M.O.

I'll leave it at that, in the interests of not offending you with my knee-jerk liberal reactions and vicious rhetoric and hyperbole.

Knock it off man… really! you remind me of a whiny , snot-nosed, little, fat kid. u

Hnnnnn, I can't walk that far… Uuuuu, I'm hungry… Awwwwww, Are we there yet?

Eurcle incarnate.

I scoffed at the notion that anyone would want to build a city on an active volcano, thus making a point at how STUPID it is to have built a city below sea level on the ocean in a hurricane track.

Seth, the city was older than America. I mean… c'mon, I know some of those guys were smart back then, but it's not like they could check the Doppler radar and turn on the Weather Channel.

Your callous reaction to the storm victims consisted of laughing and saying it was their own damn fault. I thought this very idiotic and simplistic and said so. Telling Katrina evacuees their city was destroyed because they shouldn't have been living there in the first place is childish.

As far as Rob's reaction to me, all he does is talk about how I'm a left-wing reactionary, unworthy of debate because I'm close-minded, etc. He doesn't "calmly discuss things" with me because he won't discuss anything with me. And you just did the same exact thing – label me an inferior lefty with no positive or worthwhile views and disregard me.

It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of respect. I disagree with a lot of your ideas, but I don't call you assholes or flame you or say you're dumb rednecks. I say I don't agree with your views and why (occasionally uses sarcasm or cynicism), as you disagree with mine and say why (occasionally using sarcasm or cynicism), but I continue the conversation, where you only seek to end it.

But, since neither of you appear at all interested in telling me why Reuters is biased, the original reason for this discussion, I'll leave it at that, in the interests of not offending you with my knee-jerk liberal reactions and vicious rhetoric and hyperbole.

And my posts are offensively flattering?

No no no, they're "copious or abundant"; you post a lot. You know, the third definition; the one people haven't used in like 50 years.

See? I was using a definition that NO ONE USES when I wrote that to give a false impression that your posts are offensive.

I still insist, however, that it was a "perfectly acceptable" post that "accurately reflects" what you do.

I still insist, however, that it was a "perfectly acceptable" post that "accurately reflects" what you do.

Right, that's me. All I do is try to mislead people.

*shakes head*

I give up.

Dave? Grow up. Ryan, having run through some of the last week and a half's comments, you been cut alot of slack. That is over. If you honestly believe anything Rueters has to say, you have braindamage. Oh, yea! We allready know that about you. Go play with your little minded friends over at DU and Kos, and don't forget to drink the Koolaid. Moron.

Rob, I don't understand how you can be so obstinate and still function in everyday life; you're a modern day Martin Chuzzlewit.

This from the guy who yawns and says "Big Deal!" to the fact that a 9/11 memorial is a Mecca-facing crescent.

Unbelievable.

So, really, you're taking words out of context and using them to misrepresent my position. Shame on you, Dave.

Shhhaaammme…

which…..was……the…..point!!!

A no-satire zone here?

Make another of your fulsome posts!!!

Of course, I wrote that before I witnessed the knee-jerk opposition to changing the memorial and learning that it faced Mecca.

So, really, you're taking words out of context and using them to misrepresent my position. Shame on you, Dave.

Shhhaaammme…

That's what we expect when we have a niggard running this site.

I'll ask again: get beat up a lot Dave?

That's about as relevant as your lack of masculinity manifesting itself as homophobia.

I'll take that as a "yes". The Internet allows you to be tough.