- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,751
To me, it was a clear warning that Bryan Sears should know in advance that a picture that he takes—one larded with political underpinnings—should not be taken if Sears “knew, or should have known” the picture would be hijacked for nefarious purposes.
There was no reason to call in a legit news reporter when the reporter had nothing to do with the hijack, except for the reason above.
“You’ve been warned”.
I don't know Mike Miller, but probably from what I read do not agree with his policy. I am not however so emotionally invested in to hating him as some are, so be it. Just listening to the clip, inferring that Miller called Sears to listen in, "look what someone did to your photo/video story" , not expressly blaming him or accusing him for anything does not seem a stretch if listening w/o bias. I didn't infer him thanking Sears for the photos as rhetorical either. Of course not being there couldn't see his demeanor.
The President I voted for spews "fake news" at repected reporters and when they cry over that, people on the right call those reporters snow flakes for whining. Lot of noise in politics that means absolutely nothing. I'll go with what Mr. Sears makes of it.