I read this yesterday and simply could not believe it. A Washington Post, er, journalist (cultural critic, I believe is his funtion there) pontificating about the U.S. military's choice of frames around the photo of the face of the dead terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I didn't post about it because I didn't think it worthy of comment. However, several other bloggers have done so, and, in so doing, have shown me the error of my ways.
Philip Kennicott, the WaPo, er, journalist, says that the photo of Zarqawi, suitably framed, was "chilling", "bizarre", "disturbing", "suggests a cynicism" and was nothing more than a "trophy".
Jimmie at Sundries Shack says,
When I commented on a recent article by Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post, I honestly thought I had read the worst piece of journalism I was going to read all week. I was wrong.He then proceeds to tear Mr. Kennicott a new one. And deservedly so.
Hugh Hewitt says,
Sometimes a frame is just a frame, and a dead killer a dead killer. Focusing on the frame as a means of getting into a slashing attack on the Bush Adminsitration and the military is a transparent reach, but the defeatism in the column is virulent.
Tim Graham at NewsBusters:
I think these guys are all wrong on this. I think Mr. Kennicott's point was that the frame utelized around the photo of the face of the quite dead Abu was esthetically unpleasing to the WaPo's cultural critic. So, Mark in Mexico offers these frames as options which may be more pleasing and acceptable to Mr. Kennicott's critical eye and delicate psyche.
Please visit the Pale Horse Galleries online store
for art, gifts and collectibles -- all hand made
by Mexican indigenous artists.
TAGS: Zarqawi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Washington Post, Philip Kennicott, frames