From the "a picture says a thousands words" file, take a gander at the New York Times' campaign graphic (right side of page, scroll down). It shows a happy and smiling Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama all of whom are smiling widely, showing teeth and looking quite inviting. Then comes the photo of Mitt Romney. For Mitt the NYT chose a picture with a closed-mouth, wry smile, looking down at the viewer, eyebrows heavily shadowed. Romney looks sinister compared to the photos the other three picked by the Times.
Now, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that they want to make Mitt look uncomfortable, or sinister? Can it be that the Times wants people to see Romney in a worse light compared to the others?
It is instructive to note that the Times supports McCain. Making Romney look less appealing in their graphic is quite a smooth, subtle move on the part of the Times. But it is unmistakable that this is what they are doing. The photo of Mitt was undeniably chosen to make Mitt look less appealing. It is a well-known fact of human nature that a smile showing teeth is more appealing than a grin with lips firmly clamped shut. So, it is unmistakable that this is why they chose the Mitt picture that they did.
The tricks of the liberal MSM never ceases to amaze, eh?
**Note** that the graphic I am talking about is a NYT "ad" style banner. It may appear as a different ad from click to click. So, if you hit the link I provided, you may have to refresh it several times to get to the NYT graphic in question.