LA Times misrepresents the Bush-Merkel-Massage episode!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-preen17jul17,1,2442410.story?coll=la-news-a_section

She smiled? That's it?

What about the raised arms with clenched fists????

:wtf:

....is to lie.

That is a bald-faced lie.

Period.

No room for interpretation, here.

None.

looked more like the embarassed cringe and involuntary recoil that someone gives when they'd like to tell someone to f*ck off but can't...

Never accuse the Pugs of sexual misconduct or you will be targeted.

It's too interesting to not hit the MSM, especially now given how the LA Times papered over it.

And ESPECIALLY given the other gaffe with the mic.

Yes, this will spread tomorrow.

Wait, lemme re-phrase... bombard the Liar, and let him know that we know he's a LIAR.

James.Gerstenzang@latimes.com

THANKS FOR THE EMAIL ADDRESS!!

please everyone write him..

enough is enough of these damn lies and propaganda!

fly

"Since you can't tell the difference, I'll bet you're a fun date."

BUUURRRRNNNNN! :rofl:

just when you think you couldn't POSSIBLY be any more embarrassed...

To wit...

You’re kidding, right?

“She smiled?” Hello??? How far up your tuchus do you keep your skull?

It’s obvious to anyone who saw the video of President Dumbass giving Angela Merkel an unsolicited shoulder massage that the poor woman was repulsed. She threw her arms up with her fists clenched, for chrissake! And you have the unmitigated gall to write, “She smiled”?

Let me guess: You’re vying for a job with the Ministry of Propaganda when America finally becomes a full-fledged dictatorship.

between a smile and a rictus expression?!?! She is clearly mortified, and struggling to find an appropriate response this such an inappropriate action. Consider two hypotheticals:
1) If this was one mid-level diplomat acting out toward another in this manner, this video would be Exhibit A at his (open-and-shut) sexual harrassment trial.
2) If this was Bill Clinton instead of Bush, everyone on both sides would be calling for, at the very least, censure.

WTFWJD?

And she shrugged her shoulders, clenched her fists and raised her arms. Those are certainly not the behaviors of a woman who was enjoying herself. :eyes:

Definitely a grimace. But that reporter shouldn't have written on the incident in the way that he did. Either "smiled" or "grimaced" would be considered editorializing in this case. I doubt the copy editors have seen the photos/video. Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

;-):puke:

Dear Mr. Gerstenzang:

Chancellor Merkl "smiled" when George Bush groped her?

I’ve been online tonight and have seen the half-dozen photos (there’s also video online) that illustrate the event, and I assure you the Chancellor was not amused. She grimaced, she scrunched her shoulders up defensively, threw her arms up with clenched fists, and generally registered shock and extreme distaste.

Meanwhile the man that took such liberties with the leader of another nation had the strangest look on his own face: blank, almost zombie-like, through the whole episode. Put together with Bush’s other strange behaviors at the summit, and serious questions arise about his capacity to do his job.

The people of this country need to know: is the president of the United States drunk, or on drugs, or otherwise mentally impaired? What on earth explains his increasingly bizarre behavior?

I ask this with the utmost seriousness. And also I ask with seriousness: who are you serving by writing so lightly "She smiled" when in reality "She reacted to the assault with shock and distaste" would have been the truth?

We need our newspapers to be reality-based, after all.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX

Maybe an editor deleted "reluctantly" or "diplomatically."

Also, by specifically not using a word like "warmly," maybe he was trying to make the most overt point his editor would allow.

Or maybe not. I'm just sayin', the writer isn't necessarily at fault here.

And I should have thought of it, even with the little copy editing experience I've had. DUH! I need to get back to the paper.

There may have been some hashing out of some sort of compromise over this. I've been involved in that sort of thing a few times.

Still, the end result is, as is often the case, less than satisfying.

The LA Times ceased to exist a while ago-

and the Chandlers are none too pleased with how it's gone.