As if on cue: after my posting of a photo of bulbs sprouting up in our front yard (Bulbs Sprouting Up) and suggesting that the media’s slobbering and fawning over Obama will usher in a new style of news reporting quite distinctly different from what they employed during the Bush era —dropping the photos of Iranians burning posters and flags of Obama in favor of happy thought photos for example —the CBC Newsworld gratuitously—for absolutely no newsworthy reason—sees fit to display these photos.  The news anchor Nancy Wilson reports, glibly:  “We just wanted to show you some pictures to make you smile!” 

Then they go back to their oft-repeated stories of the coming Obama inauguration and such. 

EXTRA EXTRA:
Picking up on much the same thing I did in my “Bulbs Sprouting” blog entry and this one (referencing those non-reported Reuters photos of Obama flag burning in Iran), the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com writer James Taranto writes:

The Definition of ‘Hardline’

Here’s a Reuters photo caption from last Friday:
 

Demonstrators burn an effigy of U.S. President George W. Bush during a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, in protest of Israeli aggression against Palestinians January 9, 2009. About 2,000 Muslim protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in the Malaysian capital on Friday holding placards and banners, and shouting anti-Israel slogans.

Here’s a Reuters photo caption from today:
 

Hardline demonstrators burn posters of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, during a demonstration in support of the people of Gaza, in front of the Swiss Embassy in Tehran January 13, 2009.

Not surprisingly, both captions are biased against Israel, the first referring to “Israeli aggression,” and the second claiming the poster-burners support “the people of Gaza” when one presumes they actually back the Islamic supremacist movement Hamas.

But note the difference: The guys who are burning Bush in effigy are merely “demonstrators,” while the guys who are burning Obama’s poster are “hardline demonstrators.” Reuters’ pro-Obama bias seems to be tempering its usual anti-American bias. It will be interesting to see whether this continues to be the case after Obama becomes president next week. Is Reuters merely an anti-American news service, or is it a hardline one?

Is Reuters actually a “news” service?  And the CBC?