Did Reuters Ever Capture John McCain With A Golden Halo?

World War II apparently wasn’t a complete waste.  It allowed American media liberals to learn how to do propaganda right from Joseph Goebbels’ example.

Another Subtle Obama Photo From Reuters That’s Not An Accident

Reuters has a habit of doing this..This photo was taken today at the IBEW in Maryland

photo via weaselzippers, Notice ‘attitude, skill, knowledge’ is perfectly in line with the edge

This is the IBEW seal that Obama was photographed in…

U.S. President Barack Obama tours a training center at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 26 Headquarters in Lanham, Maryland, February 16, 2010.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

2 weeks ago, it was Reuters capturing Obama with a halo

Drudge Tonight

Posted by HotAirPundit at 10:19 PM

I don’t begrudge political campaigns from photographing their candidates in a favorable light (although the halo thing is kind of spooky – and, yes, Bush’s handlers gave him a halo on at least one occasion).  But when journalists who are supposed to be objective do it – and do it repeatedly – you cross a line into true propaganda.

This was something that was done repeatedly with Obama Messiah:

Mind you, John McCain benefitted from some visual propaganda, too.  Here’s a shot taken by photographer Jill Greenberg, who had been hired by The Atlantic:

Some might argue that Obama’s propaganda treatment was more favorable than McCain’s.  But that’s a judgment call.

Outright propaganda and the political left have always gone hand in hand.  From Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Castro and Che Guevara, we have always seen the media glorify their chosen leaders in pictures and print.

The media used propaganda to influence stupid peoples’ votes in so many ways.  Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of stupid people in this country.

Newsweek Claims That Whites Who Don’t Vote For Obama Are Racists

Newsweek isn’t a completely in-the-tank-for liberals biased bullpoop rag.  They represent “legitimate journalism.”  Well, that’s the claim, anyway.

Of course, what passes for “legitimate journalism” often looks like the piece that recently emerged from the tiny little ideologue brain of Jacob Weisberg.

Here’s a representative sample:

But let’s be honest: the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He lags with them for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Just realize something: if you are white and you don’t vote for Barack Obama, it is for one and only one reason: you are a racist.

I would love to vote for a black President.  I would be quite happy to vote for a woman.  The only thing I ask is that they share my basic values, beliefs, and vision for this country.

I know, I know.  How racist and sexist of me.

Here’s the Newsweek article, in its entirety, with a little more of my outrage to follow:

History Already Beginning to Positively Re-evaluate President Bush

President Bush – mired in low polls (unless you consider the Democrat-controlled Congress’ polls, which make his numbers look fabulous) is beginning to receive more favorable consideration, according to both polls and a survey of analyses.

President Bush’s favorability rating is at 30% according to Quinnipiac (8/12-8/17), with Gallup holding him at 33% (8/7-8/10). His ratings are definitely beginning to improve. And other reports are now speaking more favorably in both tone and substance of the Bush record. The success of the surge is cited as the largest contributing factor.

A Zogby survey shows that just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President. Why the media has spent so much time broadcasting President Bush’s low numbers, while basically ignoring the Democrats’ far lower numbers, would appear to reveal a clear bias and even an agenda.

Most telling of all may be how even left-leaning media is now evaluating the President more positively. Fareed Zakaria has a Newsweek article titled, “What Bush Got Right” that states that Bush learned from his failures and set a successful new course. A survey of the article reveals that President Bush positively transformed the U.S. relationships with China and India. Zakaria writes that:

“blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. For whatever reasons and through whichever path, the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream. In many cases the next president should follow rather than reverse them.”

Also this week the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank led by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, released its survey of national security experts, who say they are “more positive about the war in Iraq, U.S. efforts in fighting global terrorist networks, and the security of the United States and its people.” The survey reveals a decidedly upward trend in the confidence and approval of President Bush’s handling of a host of foreign policy issues.

I challenge any Democrat who opposes the war in Iraq to confront the positions of their own leadership both prior to and shortly after the beginning of the war. Freedom Agenda has a compilation of quotes from prominent Democrats on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, WMD, and the need to oust the regime. It is my contention that a reading of Democrats will reveal them as a treacherous and even traitorous band of rat bastards who betrayed not only the President in time of war, but their own expressed convictions, for cheap political gain.

I will always wonder what would have happened if Democrats had presented a united face, rather than divide the country over a war that 60% of the Democrats in the Senate voted for. I believe that had the country been united, there is a very real probability that more European countries would have supported the leadership of the United States, and that Saddam Hussein might have blinked and opened his regime to the inspections President Bush demanded.