E-Mail 'Frank Rich and the NYT - why neither can be taken seriously' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Frank Rich and the NYT - why neither can be taken seriously' to a friend

Loading ...

4 Responses to "Frank Rich and the NYT – why neither can be taken seriously"

Leslie says:

September 13, 2006 at 8:39 pm

I am the Les in question, who alerted Sistah to all this. Another friend of mine, who I also e-mailed about this, wondered as you might, if the people in the photograph could possibly sue the photographer, and speculated that might be the reason Frank Rich did not include the photo in his article. Possibly, I suppose, but precedent is against it:

According to a guide to professional photographers I Googled:

“A newspapers [sic] publication of a photograph of a black man, taken in a public place, to illustrate an article on the upward mobility of blacks was not misappropriation because his name was not used, and the photograph was published for illustrative, not commercial purposes. But the photographer and agency that supplied the picture to the newspaper were liable under a state misappropriation law. The law subsequently was amended to protect freelancers supplying photographs for use as news. Arrington v. New York Times, 433 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980), modified, 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146 (1983).”

Note that the first cite (the 1980 case) is to New York State appellate division. The case was then heard by the state’s highest court (called The Court of Appeals), and that it was appealed to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case. (That’s what “cert. denied” means.)
Lorica says:

September 13, 2006 at 9:35 pm

Do these lowlifes know no depth of stupidity. Did Frank Rich not realize that someone in this photograph might respond to the asinine comments that he was making? How utterly stupid can Frank Rich and his ilk be?? Then How can people actually want to put these people back in power?? How deceived are these idiots??

Thank you Mr. Les for alerting our lovely hostess of this photo and the idiotic comments made by Frank Rich. We appreciate your help in the on going struggle against such stupidity. – Lorica
Marshall Art says:

September 14, 2006 at 12:03 am

This is typical lib “feeling” rather than thinking or in this case, investigating. It helped this notion he had that relating it as he did might be more compelling to the reader/viewer. Frankly, he’s a scumbag for purposeful manipulation of the reader/viewer. I’m betting he didn’t bother getting names cuz he rightly expected no sales.
CavalierX says:

September 14, 2006 at 6:16 am

There was no real “national unity” after 9/11, sad as that is to say. Remember that ANSWER held the first “anti-war” protest in NYC just days after the attacks, and the far-Left whackos have been gaining ground ever since by a relentless propaganda campaign against the President and all who supported him.

Comments are closed.