By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

How stupid can the Times get?*

Very. Walter Brooks explains. And the New York Times, in what may have been a misguided attempt to give Barack Obama some cover, has managed to turn his innocent wave to the Berlin crowd into a Nazi salute. Good grief.

*Correction: I take it back. The front of the Boston Globe shows Obama waving with his right hand, but the “Angola” sign is still backwards. Clearly it was just turned around. How stupid can I get?

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


Comcast never sleeps




  1. Rick

    This is what happens when donations from people in the media favor Democrats 100 to 1.A pretty innocuous picture that should have been left alone turns into the editor or whoever, thinking that it might hurt the one they favor. That my opinion anyway.

  2. Patricia of Trakai

    Come to think of it … the Washington Post printed a front-page photo of Obama with the backward ANGOLA sign, as you can see here. But the Post used a different photo from the Times, so Obama’s got his “right” arm up in the air in the Post image. Obviously the “right arm” thing didn’t bother anybody at the Post.Has anyone seen TV footage that shows the ANGOLA sign? Is it possible that the people carrying the sign had the back side facing toward Obama to show off the sign to people photographing Obama from the rear of the crowd??

  3. Anonymous

    You get what you deserve when you trust an untrustworthy source.

  4. Philocrites

    Here’s a Reuters photo on the Yahoo News Photo page in which the Angola sign is clearly backwards, but other signs are facing forward. Here’s one AP photo and here’s another with the Angola sign the wrong way. Must have been angling to get their sign in photos of Obama from the crowd.

  5. Anonymous

    I suspect the sign is “backwards” because it is being displayed for the crowd and photographers working in usual perspective over the crowd, not to Obama and over-the-shoulder photogs (as shown).Either that or the signmaker is a old style typesetter …(A better sign would have been opaque and had letters right-reading on each side.)Bill R

  6. mike_b1

    You can’t see it in the Times or Globe photos, but in the Post version there’s a “BARACK” poster to the bottom right, below the stage and crowd level, which is not reversed (or backwards). That is the giveaway that photo was printed as intended.

  7. Robin Edgar

    Does anyone really care which hand Barack Obama is waving with? I mean all he is doing is waving. It is ludicrous to suggest that a 21st century black politician would raise his arm in a Nazi salute.

  8. Anonymous

    Maybe if you could stop kissing Walter’s rather large posterior for a couple of minutes because he serialized your book, you could see more clearly. Brooks and his blog site has always been credibility-challenged, yet you continue to trump it up as something it’s not.Chickens coming home to roost. You should be ashamed of perpetuating this, since just a very little investigation would show that photo was not flipped.Also, I love it that Walter talks about the “negative” being flipped. Umm, Walter, it’s 2008. A few folks are shooting digital.

  9. O-FISH-L

    The fact that it’s completely plausible, even to the liberals, that the “paper of record” had done something sinister to help Obama, raises serious doubts about the veracity of those same liberals who deny a liberal bias in the media. If there’s no bias, why would you have believed this?

  10. Anonymous

    I’m not sure but I don’t think Dan ever said there wasn’t a liberal bias in the media.I’t hard to deny there is a bais in many papers and networks.

  11. Anonymous

    That Walter Brooks guy is still insisting the photo was switched — despite all the evidence to the contrary. The guy is totally bonkers.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén