A personal pet peeve of mine is when newspapers run terribly outdated file photos of prominent individuals in the news. Local weeklies are the usual purveyors of such errors, but today's dead tree version of the Seattle Times caught my eye for an untimely photo of Fred Thompson (which appears online as well).
The comparative mane is a dead give away, looking like a shot from Thompson's Senate service in the '90's. Either way, it's noticeably different from the Thompson of the current year. I'm assuming it was an innocent mistake, but the Thompson they used looks closer to his Die Hard days than the readily available selection of more current pictures.
Can't we do better than file photos roughly a decade old?
Posted by Eric Earling at August 16, 2007 08:12 PM | Email ThisOne word: copyright.
Posted by: anonymous on August 16, 2007 08:31 PMThis is an earth-shattering article, you know.
Posted by: Mordecai on August 16, 2007 09:00 PMPosted by: Michelle on August 16, 2007 10:52 PM
Let's see some more Jeri Thompson
Posted by: John Bailo on August 16, 2007 11:47 PMShow a LOT of photos of Fred from years ago, so that becomes the "image" of the man. Then at the debates and public appearances he's suddenly a LOT older looking.
I mean, if 3 months of running a campaign age a man 10 years, why surely he can't have the strength to be President!
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 17, 2007 01:11 AMBut have you read the article?
We are on the eve of a Revolution.
What Fred is outlining, here, is a fiscal/Constitutional conservatism that makes "libertarians" look like pork-barrel Democrats. And this is not the first time. No one, and I mean no one, has campaigned like this for the Presidency since Reagan. It is so unfamiliar that I think most people read what he's talking about and don't understand it because they can't believe it. Other politicians (even Gore) tried to "do" Reagan. Thompson isn't doing any such thing. He's being Thompson, but Fred Thompson gives every indication that he really believes the principles to which our pragmatic elite only give lip service.
If he is as serious as my every instinct tells me he is, these are the principles that can, once again, turn the whole ship around and head America in the right direction.
This is the message that can begin to restore the Consitution, the proper role of government, our lost freedoms, our lost security.
I saw 1958 as a ten-year-old and it was a different world. We were a free country with endless possibilities and a common culture. We were the foundation stone of greatness that the '60s desecrated. We can renew our destiny if we return to the FIRST THINGS. And here, we see, through the legally-imposed veil of "testing the waters" every appearance of a man who understands, and is committed to the first things as once they were.
I hope he turns pro-life.
Posted by: Doug Parris on August 17, 2007 01:55 AMThe papers run the worst photographs of politicians they don't like and the best photographs of those they do like. Surprised you didn't know this to be the case.
Same thing happens with video clips on the news. Only the best parts of Democrat appearances is shown and only the worst part of Republican's are shown.
This bias is one of the reasons Washington law bars the release of booking photos, since most are not very good.
Posted by: Don on August 17, 2007 06:13 AMKind of reminds me of the Clinton machine. Perhaps we should call them the "anti-Clintons".
Posted by: swatter on August 17, 2007 08:32 AMHow about Talk Radio is interactive, print and TV are not? Conservatives, by and large, are NOT afraid to logically debate their viewpoints, and if shown wrong will change. Positions are held from a standpoint of logic and reason.
Liberals tend to hold positions because of feeling or emotions, and those positions often crumble in the face of reasoned debate.
Being on talk radio opens you up to debate; being in print or TV cuts that option completely.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 17, 2007 09:39 AMYou mean like they did for McCain in 2000 or Pat Buchanan in 1992?
Posted by: Cato on August 17, 2007 10:16 AMKorean War veteran Nyles Reed, 75, opened an envelope last week to learn a Purple Heart had been approved for injuries he sustained as a Marine on June 22, 1952.
But there was no medal. Just a certificate and a form stating that the medal was "out of stock."
"I can imagine, of course, with what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's a big shortage," Reed said. "At least, I would imagine so."
The form letter from the Navy Personnel Command told Reed he could wait 90 days and resubmit an application, or buy his own medal.
After waiting 55 years, however, Reed decided to pay $42 for his own Purple Heart and accompanying ribbon -- plus state sales taxes -- at a military surplus store.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5061221.html
It's kind of like "the Craswell Years," "The 300-mile-per-gallon carburetor," and Ronald Reagan's refusal to criticize a primary opponent. Some myths are so compelling the truth has trouble overcoming them.
