Fair and Balanced

Posted by on . 37 comments.

Because fake balance is all the rage in the media, I thought I’d try my hand:

leftist_garbage.jpg

sticker_shirt.jpg

More SF protest photos are up on Flickr.

Comments

  1. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 7:47 am

    Toplessness. I can’t believe I’d ever argue against it, but come on.

  2. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 8:18 am

    I can’t believe I’d ever argue against it

    nullus?

  3. JimC says:
    March 19, 2007 at 8:58 am

    Matt, have you seen any of these guys around during war protest in your area?

  4. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:03 am

    i haven’t. this woman, along with a few people waving israeli flags, was about the extent of counter-protesting. it is san francisco after all.

  5. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:03 am

    nullus?

    I ask that question of you, sir! I find it interesting that you chose that photo as one of two to feature in this post. Why? For the insightful message emblazoned on her chest?

  6. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:06 am

    I ask that question of you, sir!

    um. i think you might be confused.

    Why? For the insightful message emblazoned on her chest?

    because she’s fashion-forward.

  7. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:11 am

    um. i think you might be confused.

    Possibly, as I’ve never followed the links that explained your nullus joke, but I think it has something to do with jocular types proclaiming their enduring heterosexuality or something. It is from this understanding of the joke that I question your choice of this picture. Although I do find it interesting that she was a counter-protester. Normally the exhibitionist flakes are all on our side.

  8. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:15 am

    It is from this understanding of the joke that I question your choice of this picture.

    ok, it’s probably quite time for you now.

    Although I do find it interesting that she was a counter-protester.

    so would i, if that was the case. clearly the counter-protester is fully clothed, and the girl wearing the “IMPEACH” sticker is protesting the war, and not the protesters.

  9. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:15 am

    Strike that, it was the other woman who is the counter-protester. So yeah, fucking typical.

  10. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:27 am

    ok, it’s probably quite time for you now.

    Time for what?

    Seriously though, it doesn’t bug you that this is what gets covered during protests? That this is how the anti-war movement is being represented? That’s all I’m saying. That it really bugs me.

  11. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Time for what?

    that should have been quiet time. as in stfu if you’re too lazy to click links.

    Seriously though, it doesn’t bug you that this is what gets covered during protests?

    um, sac, those are my photos, my coverage. would you rather photographers didn’t take photos of interesting outfits/signs/etc?

    the anti-war “movement” is more than some people who walk down a city’s main street. but pictures of writers and the rest of the 68% of the country who are anti-war would be boring.

  12. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:45 am

    I know these are your photos, which is why I’m asking about your choice of pics to feature in this post, which is to highlight this weekend’s anti-war protest. You chose a pic of a near-topless woman. Obviously, you can choose whatever pics you want, I’m not saying you can’t. I’m just curious as to why you chose that one, and also I’m logging my frustration with protesters like that woman, who I feel do a disservice to a very serious message.

    I’m not surprised that the media focuses on such protesters, nor do I begrudge them for it. Those kind of pics get eyes on their pages, which is what it’s all about. So it’s up to people in the anti-war movement to decide whether this is how they want to be represented. Of course, they can’t stop anyone from expressing themselves, but maybe they could make it clear that lame stunts like disrobing only take away from the message they’re trying to get across.

  13. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:49 am

    So it’s up to people in the anti-war movement to decide whether this is how they want to be represented. Of course, they can’t stop anyone from expressing themselves, but maybe they could make it clear that lame stunts like disrobing only take away from the message they’re trying to get across.

    well, i’m not in any movement. any why is it a lame stunt? protesters in the 60s did this and more.

  14. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:53 am

    but pictures of writers and the rest of the 68% of the country who are anti-war would be boring.

    Pictures of thousands of people walking through the streets in a dignified manner would be far more powerful than dudes on stilts and women with their tops off.

  15. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:56 am

    i’ll forward along your concerns. maybe everyone can dress in Armani for the 5th anniversary. Power ties all around.

  16. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 9:57 am

    well, i’m not in any movement.

    You’re against the war. I would think you’d feel some kind of simpatico with the protesters. I know I do, which is why these lame stunts bug me so much.

    any why is it a lame stunt? protesters in the 60s did this and more.

    It was lame then, too. The hippies didn’t stop the Vietnam war, anyway.

  17. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 10:02 am

    i’ll forward along your concerns. maybe everyone can dress in Armani for the 5th anniversary. Power ties all around.

    I’d settle for business-casual, or even Casual Friday.

  18. frankypelvis says:
    March 19, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Pictures of thousands of people walking through the streets in a dignified manner would be far more powerful than dudes on stilts and women with their tops off.

    Obviously it’d be great if all anti-war protesters would do as you say and dress up like business men and lend an air of respectability to all of this. It would be even better if actual white collar folks got involved in such protests, and I’m sure to a limited degree some do.

    On the other hand at least these “undignified” people are organizing against the war, and have been since day 1. I don’t know you, so I don’t know if you’ve ever gathered together thousands of your dignified pals together to take action, if not that might be a better use of your energies than complaining when people on the internets enjoy some perky liberal boobies a little too much.

  19. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    On the other hand at least these “undignified”

    people are organizing against the war, and have been since day 1. I don’t know you, so I don’t know if you’ve ever gathered together thousands of your dignified pals together to take action, if not that might be a better use of your energies than complaining when people on the internets enjoy some perky liberal boobies a little too much.

    I’ve protested in the past and found it thrilling and fun but not very effective. Most of the participants are more interested in the self-expression aspect of it. My view is to save that shit for Burning Man or something.

    If I thought marching in a circus down Market St. would do any good, I’d be there in a second. But I don’t. Nowadays, I donate to various organizations and vote for those whom I think best represent my political views. What do YOU do, Mr. Pelvis?

    Obviously it’d be great if all anti-war protesters would do as you say and dress up like business men and lend an air of respectability to all of this. It would be even better if actual white collar folks got involved in such protests, and I’m sure to a limited degree some do.

    I’m not asking for suits and ties, just not costumes. Also, I’d say the majority of people with full-time jobs who protest hold white-collar positions. They can usually take days off more easily that their blue-collar brethren, and also, as a population, tend to me more liberal.

    Also, my main point in all this is that Matt chose to feature a topless woman to represent the anti-war demonstrate in this post. I think that does a disservice to the anti-war message. Again, he can choose any photo he wants, but he can’t expect not to receive any criticism for his choices.

  20. matt t says:
    March 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    WTF is wrong with lightening the fuck up for five seconds to joke that our side has hotter chicks? Jesus H. Shit!

  21. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Also, my main point in all this is that Matt chose to feature a topless woman to represent the anti-war demonstrate in this post. I think that does a disservice to the anti-war message. Again, he can choose any photo he wants, but he can’t expect not to receive any criticism for his choices.

    i’ve written plenty about my thoughts on war protests, most precisely here. i don’t edit this site according to what’s best for protesters, the movement, or anyone else. the photos i choose to post here are the ones i feel will most likely cause people to click through to the rest of the photos i posted on flickr, which include a father and daughter, a yound black child, some native americans, and a white drumline. anyone can criticize my editorial decisions, or the photos themselves, but your arguments are patently pathetic, as demonstrated by the pelvis above.

  22. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    anyone can criticize my editorial decisions, or the photos themselves, but your arguments are patently pathetic, as demonstrated by the pelvis above.

    Why pathetic? Because I no longer protest? Is that the benchmark I must satisfy? I understand your editorial decision, I simply think it does a disservice to anti-war sentiments. Please tell me how a topless woman furthers the goal of ending the war, or even better, how a topless woman with an anti-war sentiment on her chest DOESN’T hurt the anti-war cause.

    our side has hotter chicks?

    I’ll agree with you there.

  23. matt says:
    March 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Why pathetic?

    because you’re trying to hold protesters to a dress code. it’s absurd. i would imagine that girl had her picture taken by more than 100 people yesterday. she has a sticker on her chest that supports impeachment (among other things). to the extent that she gets that message out there, good for her. but at the end of the day, every socioeconomic group was present, and it takes all kinds. fixating on what photo i chose boarders on concern-trolling. aren’t you bothered by the woman who is attempting to reduce thousands of people’s sentiment to “garbage?”

  24. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    aren’t you bothered by the woman who is attempting to reduce thousands of people’s sentiment to “garbage?”

    Yes I am, in fact, which is why I’m also concerned with the topless woman, as she only makes it more difficult to address the issues at hand with enough clarity that just maybe a few fence-straddlers will lean to our side.

    i would imagine that girl had her picture taken by more than 100 people yesterday. she has a sticker on her chest that supports impeachment (among other things). to the extent that she gets that message out there, good for her.

    I don’t think that’s the message she’s getting across. There is such a thing as bad publicity.

  25. frankypelvis says:
    March 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Yes I am, in fact, which is why I’m also concerned with the topless woman, as she only makes it more difficult to address the issues at hand with enough clarity that just maybe a few fence-straddlers will lean to our side.

    Who are these mythical fence-straddlers who make decisions involving the life or death, based on completely irrelevant criteria. Why would Matt want to cater exclusively to this minority segment of the population? Why would these fence straddlers be coming to this site of all places to help them make the most important moral choice of our lifetimes?

    Now if you personally are offended by the pretty near-naked girl, say so. Alternatively if you are a aware of a demographic that is both aware of this website, politically persuadable, and offended by the female form, please point me to their website CitizensPossiblyAgainstWar-
    ButDefinitelyAgainst-
    PartialNudity.org.

  26. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    I’m not offended at all, just disappointed. I’m still willing to hear how dressing up in costume and/or disrobing helps bring legitimacy to a cause.

  27. phydeauxspeaks says:
    March 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    I know it’s hours later, but I just wanted to let sac know this. While I clicked on this link because of the (nearly) topless chick, the images in the slide show were much more powerful, and as a resident of the east coast, I would never have seen them if not for the hottie’s pic.

    Thank you, matt, for sharing!

  28. sac says:
    March 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    No wait, I understand you better. It’s not that I think anyone would be offended by her near-nudity, just that they would immediately write her off. Look, I’m all for public nudity, believe me, but public nudity to make a statement for anything other than public nudity laws or civil rights based on sexual orientation only takes away from the message. In my opinion.

  29. phydeauxspeaks says:
    March 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    I guess it’s not hours later…. I keep forgetting that whole earth rotates thing and time zones and stuff. oops!

  30. jamie beth says:
    March 19, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    sac, i understand that some right wing conservatives could write off a near nude woman and therefore take away from the gravity of the issues, hower, the woman in the picture is not nearly nude. she’s covered more than most starlets on an average day. if she wants to dress that way to make a statement, good for her, and come on, the look on the guy’s face is priceless.

  31. jamie beth says:
    March 19, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    ps – as the resident girl (while sarabeth is on vacation, whatever!) i must say, i’m worried about her nipples….

  32. sluggo says:
    March 19, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    sac & matt
    Girls, girls, girls, as Saul Alinsky (or was it Jerry Delafemina — no pun meant — or Pope Sixtus) said, “the sizzle precedes the steak”.
    http://wonkette.com/politics/protests/brazilian-protest-gals-incredible-true-story-244937.php

  33. sarabeth says:
    March 20, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    ps – as the resident girl (while sarabeth is on vacation, whatever!) i must say, i’m worried about her nipples….

    the record will show that I have a firm policy of never discussing nipples on 1115. not in posts. not in comments.

    i don’t understand sac’s attitude at all. She’s wearing much more than a bikini. And just as Jamie said, what makes the picture is the guy’s expression.

    I’m now officially a recovering vacationer. any day now I’ll erupt into posts again.

  34. sarabeth says:
    March 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    “the sizzle precedes the steak”.

    oh, shit. now we’re hosting links to naked boobs. (nullus?)

    (still no reference to nipples, please note.)

  1. Wonkette says:
    March 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Rumors On The Internets: Pale In Comparison…

    Naked chicks at San Francisco protest marches not in same league as Brazil, still way hotter than DC. [1115] Don’t you just get so damn tired of Bush and the Jews milking 9/11 all the damn time? [MEMRI] Or……

  2. Janaína Bueno And Friends Start An Exciting Topless Bush-bashing Trend : SKIRMISHER says:
    March 19, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    [...] Images from Knuttz and 1115. [...]

  3. Got Detroit? » Post » Picture of the Day: Parades says:
    March 20, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    [...] Fair and Balanced [Link] [...]