The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Seeing the Forest through the Libtards

Have you ever noticed how leftists, when they have nothing left to argue, inevitably fall back upon tarring their opponent as "narrow-minded?" Yeah, me too. Which brings us to this cute little nugget, brought to us by brand-spanking new friend of Snapped Shot, English photographer Tom White. Tom stopped by to say "hello" to us last Friday, leaving a rambling comment on an article that's over a year old:

It beggers belief to think that someone with so obviously skewed and biased interpretations of photographs and reports on subjects you have so obviously little personal experience of can claim to be revealing the bias in said reports, photographs etc.

This is some of the most biased and subjective social and political commentary I have ever read. Especially galling is the tone of your writing which is distinctly pompous and self righteous.

Exposing Photojournalism? Objectivity? I see nothing of the kind here.

For example, to suggest (using the thinly disguised rhetoric and italicised emphasis) that a member of a group called Artists Against The War is incapable of adequately reporting on conflict based upon their professed views on the nature of warfare is preposterous. I have met many conflict photographers who are wholly against warfare and report on it in order to show how brutal the reality of war is and how it is one of the most horrific of all humankind's activities. If this is what you would regard as a biased view then you should perhaps don a flak jacket and go to a warzone yourself in order to show us the content and form of unbiased war reporting.

I'd just like to briefly asses one quote from yourself:

"Can we trust that they'd be able to tell us the truth about something they're wholly opposed to?"

To suggest that someone with an opinion on something cannot tell the 'truth' about that something reveals a whole host of flaws in your general outlook and completely negates the validity of your statements. You claim to have the thread of common sense and logic pervading your life, yet you can write the above statement without realising the paradoxical nature of it within it's context?

It is a shame, because reasoned critique of the media and it's output is sorely needed, however after reading several posts then I can only conclude that this blog is not the place where I will find it.

By "reasoned critique of the media," I assume that Tom would prefer that I limit my focus on the press to denouncing Fox News on a daily basis—but you know, there are plenty other websites out there that have made a staple of doing that and only that, even while claiming to be "impartial" themselves. Besides which, I've never claimed to be "unbiased." We're all affected by our inner biases, Tom, whether we would like to admit it or not.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me again point out that I am actively and completely partial towards the West, which as far as I can tell, does not hide behind women and behead civilians. These characteristics are what makes the West the honourable combatant in this current war, and the terrorist scum which we are fighting against, the cowards.

My reply to Tom, which you can read here, basically points out that many of the photographers covering the Middle East are not anti-"war" in the least:—On the other hand, they actively take part in supporting and promoting the terrorists that are destabilising the region on a daily basis. That sounds awfully pro-war to me. To date, I haven't heard any reply from Tom on this point, but he's always welcome to chime in on this thread, if he wants.

Tom also pulls out the other traditional pièce de résistance used by the Left: It is a prerequisite that you must go to war in order to write about it.

At least, if you're a conservative.

You see, if you're a liberal, then absolutely no personal experience is necessary in order to have the absolute moral authority needed to admonish the West.

Being the evil neocon Bushbot under Halliburton's control (or is it Blackwater this year?) that I am, I thought it would be in order to examine Tom's credentials for myself. To absolutely nobody's surprise, this is what I found:

Absolute Moral Authority™. Or was that Absolut?

(Click to zoom.)

Yeah, just as I thought:—Sauce for the goose, cod oil for the gander. Why not give us another call when you get back from your first rotation in Jenin, Tom?

Not being content with the verbal lashing he left for me in the comments section, Tom immediately fired off another complaint to Ye Olde Inbox, just to make sure I got the message that he doesn't like me:

I think you should rename your site


I bet the domain name is up for grabs.

As for "exposing photojournalism one frame at a time", how about actually commenting on a photograph that is not from the middle east, does not depict Arabs or Muslims and does not include a distinct air of casual racism. That would make a change.

What a wry joker, that Tom.

Far be it from me to point out that the appellation "towelheads" does not appear once on my website, or at least it didn't until Tom "Child of Compassion and Tolerance" White used it to smear me. Typical of the infantile left, isn't it?

I'll wrap this up with the absolute best part of this whole little exchange: The comments left over on Tom's page:

e_a said...
He lives near me. Well documented bigot in local political/social affairs. Wouldn't be half surprised to see him out in a white hood some night. [Ed.:—What, you mean like this? I'll get right on it...]

October 27, 2007 3:00 PM

tom white said...
Yeah I saw he was from Virginia! Local Celeb?

October 27, 2007 5:47 PM

Wow, y'all sure have me pegged. Next time you're in town, be sure to watch for my regular 3-hour news program on News Channel 8.

But hey, at least Tom's honest enough to admit that I'm his enemy. Touché, good sir.


Powered by Snarf · Contact Us