John on June 9, 2006 at 11:56 am
[Welcome, Hugh Hewitt readers...]
Is there an award for “Stupidest Excuse for Bush Bashing”? If so I think we have a winner. Washington Post “Culture Critic” Philip Kennicott has a piece in today’s edition criticizing the Bush administration for its choice of picture frames. I kid you not:
Zarqawi’s face was seen inside what appeared to be a professional photographic mat job, with a large frame, as if it were something one might preserve and hang on the wall next to other family portraits. One function of frames is to bound an image, and close down its open edges; frames delimit, both physically and by extension, metaphorically. But that was the last thing this frame was doing.
The rest of Kennicott’s piece is a weakly encoded keep-your-chin-up message to anti-war types discouraged by an example of American success:
“[T]he image has little power. Indeed, as with so many images in this war, it is loaded with the potential to backfire.”
But Kennicott hits his lowest point when he employs the liberal reporter’s favorite dodge:
For those who want revenge, the head of Zarqawi is a welcome sight; but it reminds others how much this war has been about cycles of killing, retribution, tribal and sectarian violence, and the most primitive destructive urges.
I’m going to step way out on a limb here and guess that Philip Kennicott didn’t interview a single person for this piece. The “others” he’s talking about include some liberal blogs he read, a couple other liberal guys in the Post newsroom and, most of all, Philip Kennicott.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is not the first time Philip has turned minutiae into Bush-bashing copy. There’s his piece from 2004 criticizing Bush’s choice of metaphor, specifically his reference to having “political capital”:
The use of the saying also summons up the identity Bush has most assiduously avoided showing to the electorate: the capitalist and man of privilege, who has thrived not only through his own political skills but also through a mix of inherited wealth and inherited status.
And this piece which contains his love letter to Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11:
Although Moore happily threw himself into the back-and-forth of partisan rancor, his film — a deft mix of documentary and satire, with feints at tragedy — rose above it. “Fahrenheit 9/11″ was funny and sad, and owed a lot to the American tell-me-a-whopper tradition of Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken. And whatever its failings as high-minded documentary, it was honest in the sense that satirists, with their artistic license to exaggerate and caricature, are allowed to lock ‘n’ load and blast away at sacred cows, straw men and anything else (including facts) that gets in their way.
Stories like this have always been a mainstay at the Post, but it reminds others that pompous left-wing journalists will think of any excuse to give the middle-finger to the Bush administration and its supporters.
Category: MSM & Bias |