During current Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy, is the U.S. Mainstream Media using old photos of Limbaugh -instead of recent ones- to editorialize? It seems so to me
Just wanted to mention this subject this afternoon before I moved on to some other matters, but I honestly can't be the only person in America who has noticed (and is now wondering) WHY the U.S. Mainstream Media -the same one that called the GOP nomination for Mitt Romney before the actual campaign ever started in earnest- keeps using old photos, and in some cases, very old photos, of Rush Limbaugh in their articles the past few weeks.
Somehow, the same folks who wouldn't think to use an old photo of Justin Bieber, Tiger Woods or Donald
Trump to illustrate something any they're saying or doing now, seem completely unable to find a new one
that conforms to what Limbaugh looks like now?
He's not exactly a hermit, you know.
He is who he is, but he is also, arguably, trimmer than many if not most of those old photos from 15-20 years ago that I keep seeing, so why is the U.S. news media seemingly going out of its way to not only use those old photos, esp. of his face, which they then greatly magnify, but then use them to editorialize on the subject of the story before any of the text is read?
That's a good question.
It's also noteworthy that compared to almost anyone else I can think of: politician, athlete, entertainment celebrity, or even John Doe or Jane Q. Public, there is rarely, if ever, a date for the photos of him.
Or even a photographer/agency credit.
It's like the photo of Limbaugh just took itself and magically appeared in the news room for them to use.
The LA Times' Company Town blog post of today, the first in the list below from today's Google Alert,
is perhaps the most obvious example I can name.
As you can see when you go to the story, it does all three of the above.
I'm specifically using the photo they use, on purpose, to prove that very point: no date, no photo credit.
And for those of you who either live far from LA or who don't read the LA Times regularly, the link within the above photo on the LA Times website, curiously, takes you to an LA Times story by Scott Collins on their very popular Company Town blog -which I subscribe to- about actress Patricia Heaton, titled,
Patricia Heaton: Twitter woes recall past Rush Limbaugh firestorm
March 7, 2012 | 2:46 pm
com/showtracker/2012/03/ patricia-heaton-twitter-woes- recall-earlier-rush-limbaugh- firestorm.html
not a link to a timeline of the current controversy involving him and Sandra Fluke.
Nor is it even a link to an article or essay about the longstanding and well-known hypocrisy in both the news media and in Hollywood, which itself at least partly explains why it also doesn't link to anything involving any of the numerous past slights and slurs tossed-out by any of a number of liberal celebs, inc. everyone's favorite target of hypocrisy, comedian/TV host Bill Maher.
Seriously, are well-informed readers who actually can appreciate nuance and context, and who have some genuine notions of basic journalistic fairness, like me, just supposed to believe that all these things randomly happen by accident?
That photos from years ago find themselves placed into stories despite an abundance of more recent photos?
I have to tell you, THAT'S a very tough sell right now.
(I've deleted all the other Google Alert citations below to save space, since, fortunately for me, the very first one makes the point so well, the other 28 pale in comparison.)
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply@google.
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:46 AM
Subject: Google Alert - "Rush Limbaugh"
|Rush Limbaugh to advertiser: I don't want you back|
Los Angeles Times
The intense campaign to cut advertising to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” took another turn Thursday when one of the first companies to pull its ads reportedly asked to return to the radio show -- only to be told by Team Limbaugh that the conservative host ...
See all stories on this topic »