I think this particular story was about cancelling senate, not so much the militia showing up, despite the photo—more on that in a minute. As far as that goes, i can’t really find much fault with the story. It appears the Senate was advised of a credible threat against them, and they chose to cancel. Here is the passage I think supports my take on it: Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-Portland) posted on social media a text message from Senate leadership, stating that the Saturday session was cancelled. "The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate President of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow," the message says. "The Superintendent strongly recommends that no one come to the Capitol and President [Peter] Courtney heeded that advice minutes ago." Republicans in Oregon should have simply stayed in town and voted. In my opinion, this is a business regulation bill, not a climate bill, and therefore it can be reversed in future sessions. At risk of losing some of my liberal cred, I doubt very much a state level cap and trade bill will help reverse 12,000 years of melting glaciers, no matter how good Oregon Dems feel about the bill. Likewise, when Wisconsin Democrats were faced with those anti-union bills when Walker was elected, they were best advised to simply vote their vote. Instead they attempted to undo the entire election with that recall. We see how that has turned out. The Texas example of Democrats fleeing the state, in your earlier post, I do understand that, however. That was a redistricting issue and more akin to killing off their political existence. But anyway. The misleading photo is a symptom of how corrupt the media has become. I prefer tame profile or stock photos, to marketing photos as you see here. I should get into it more or go find some good writing on it but whatever, (spent too much time on this post already). Here’s the typical thinking: Good news story for Bush/Obama/Trump? Quick, find a photo of them preening and smiling wide! Bad news for the president? Run the photo of them frowning and looking downcast! (even though it’s probably just a photo of them reading the paper, cropped for effect). This manipulation of photography is not something many people notice but that has an insidious effect on how we perceive etc etc yada yada. All news orgs seem to do this now. Instead of just reporting to you, they want to elicit an emotion too. So I’m really glad you pointed out that was a misleading photo not from the event, because I wouldn’t have noticed otherwise. In defense of the news reporter, the choice of photo was probably not made by her, but a manager or IT person. Ok, my rambling is done.