Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Mort54 on July 07, 2008, 05:43:06 pm
-
Doctored photos are big news lately. The latest example can be found here:
http://photoshopnews.com/ (http://photoshopnews.com/)
If this wasn't so scary, it would be funny.
-
Doctored photos are big news lately. The latest example can be found here:
http://photoshopnews.com/ (http://photoshopnews.com/)
If this wasn't so scary, it would be funny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fox News?
Not the "fair and balanced" guys!
Surely they wouldn't lie. Would they?
-
Not only the teeth yellowed and the hair moved foreward (for a lower forehead).
Also heads stretched, noses and chins enlarged, so it looks like caricatures.
America needs better laws to protect individuals.
-
And heavy bags added under the eyes. Nice job, Fox News. If you don't like the truth, just distort it. Sheesh.
-
Fox's twisting the truth to suit its right-wing extremist agenda isn't exactly news. If they displayed an ounce of objectivity, now that would be news.
-
Since they aren't really a legitimate news organization (since they have no journalistic standards), and are really more like a tabloid rag, I'm wondering if we're being too harsh on them. Maybe we shouldn't expect any more from them than we can expect from, say, the National Enquirer (I hope I don't get sued by the National Enquirer for comparing them to Fox "News").
P.S. I'm being just a little bit sarcastic here :-)
-
Looking at those pictures, I think it's awfully hard to make a case that there was any intentional distortion. "Yellowed" teeth? Look at the shirt the guy is wearing. That whole shot has a greenish cast in the Fox frames, not just the teeth. How do we know where that green cast came from? It could be from the video capture process that produced these examples, and may have not been present in whatever it was Fox broadcast at all.
And exagerated features? Look at the frames people! They're square. I don't know about your TV, but mine is 16:9. Things are going to look really distorted when you compress a 16:9 frame into a square, and that certainly didn't happen on the Fox broadcast.
Then look at the source of the complaint: MediaMatters.org. They are funded exclusively by left-wing activists. You have all been baited into a political statement, which has nothing whatever to do with "doctored photos."
-
Looking at those pictures, I think it's awfully hard to make a case that there was any intentional distortion.
No, it was obviously intentional. Look at the hair lines. In the first cases the hairline is lowered, and in the other, it's raised. Those aren't just color changes - those changes required the use of the clone tool. It's hard to see how these are anything but intentional.
As for the aspect ratio, the Fox News logo looks correct, so I don't see any aspect ratio issue.
As for the source - well, I think the source is obvious - it's Fox news. MediaMatters just caught them in the act. The only people being duped are the american people, by the likes of Fox News. Sad but true.
-
Since they aren't really a legitimate news organization (since they have no journalistic standards), and are really more like a tabloid rag, I'm wondering if we're being too harsh on them. Maybe we shouldn't expect any more from them than we can expect from, say, the National Enquirer (I hope I don't get sued by the National Enquirer for comparing them to Fox "News").
P.S. I'm being just a little bit sarcastic here :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually agree with this. I hope no one is bothering to prove that Weekly World News faked their Bat Boy photos.
-
No, it was obviously intentional. Look at the hair lines. In the first cases the hairline is lowered, and in the other, it's raised. Those aren't just color changes - those changes required the use of the clone tool. It's hard to see how these are anything but intentional.
As for the aspect ratio, the Fox News logo looks correct, so I don't see any aspect ratio issue.
As for the source - well, I think the source is obvious - it's Fox news. MediaMatters just caught them in the act. The only people being duped are the american people, by the likes of Fox News. Sad but true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, let me see if I understand your argument. A well-known left wing group claims that Fox News did some evil "photo doctoring." So the evidence offered is some sort of video capture that can't possibly be a completely accurate reproduction of the original Fox feed, since it's a square frame. Those images that supposedly came from Fox had to be altered, or they wouldn't be square. Either they were cropped, or they were compressed, but we don't know which. Who did what altering, and when? I take it you're willing to believe one very biased organization complaining about the bias of another organization?
And, the "doctoring" was done to make these guys look...what? Fox viewers would have gone along with whatever these two reporters said before, but some evil Fox photo editor went and made their teeth yellow, and that now sways public opinion. Everything would have been fine, but those edited harilines have changed the course of human history. Gee, if I saw those Fox images, I'd have to think those reporters must be mutant space aliens with forheads like that. No space aliens on the editorial staff! No yellow teeth!
Of course I can see how you might be outraged. No traditional news outlet ever tried to take out a sitting president with National Guard letters from the 1960's that were mysteriously printed in Times New Roman. No, Fox is the only source of news bias out there.
-
A bit late for April Fools...
-
A bit late for April Fools...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Foolishness knows no calendar...
-
There are such things as doctored photos in news reports. Back in late '63 and early '64, when numerous org's ran the "Oswald" backyard photos, many of the copies had differences such as sidearm present or absent. The 3 best-known of the backyards in different poses had the same exact face, obviously pasted in. It's merely amusing that "they" would do that, but then such well-respected pundits as Michael Baden and Vincent Bugliosi swear by the fakes that it turns reality on its head. MTV really institutionalized the reality tricks when Infinity bought them, and right-wingia was so ordered by ClearChannel (an Orwellian term if there ever was), that Fox is just a comic-strip version of the true masters that preceded them. I worked down the block from Fox for 3 years. Major scum.
-
Ok, let me see if I understand your argument. A well-known left wing group claims that Fox News did some evil "photo doctoring." So the evidence offered is some sort of video capture that can't possibly be a completely accurate reproduction of the original Fox feed, since it's a square frame. Those images that supposedly came from Fox had to be altered, or they wouldn't be square. Either they were cropped, or they were compressed, but we don't know which. Who did what altering, and when? I take it you're willing to believe one very biased organization complaining about the bias of another organization?
And, the "doctoring" was done to make these guys look...what? Fox viewers would have gone along with whatever these two reporters said before, but some evil Fox photo editor went and made their teeth yellow, and that now sways public opinion. Everything would have been fine, but those edited harilines have changed the course of human history. Gee, if I saw those Fox images, I'd have to think those reporters must be mutant space aliens with forheads like that. No space aliens on the editorial staff! No yellow teeth!
Of course I can see how you might be outraged. No traditional news outlet ever tried to take out a sitting president with National Guard letters from the 1960's that were mysteriously printed in Times New Roman. No, Fox is the only source of news bias out there.
The scariest thing about the US neocon movement is the extent to which ordinary citizens buy into their propaganda. It reminds me a lot of Germany in the 1920s. Read into that what you will. If you can't recognize the extent of doctoring done to those photos (which is blatantly obvious to any objective viewer), then I can't help you (and no one else can either).
The first photo in particular has a lowered hairline, enlarged ears, enlarged chin, enlarged nose, bushier eyebrows, gaps added between teeth, darkening under the eyes, and yellowing of the teeth. This has nothing to do with aspect ratio, and is a result of photoshop manipulation, plain and simple.
It has been suggested by a number of news sources that Fox tried to make the first reporter look more "jewish". Yet another connection to 1920s Germany. The New York Times has taken exception to what Fox did, so this isn't just coming from MediaMatters. In fact, if you Google this, this is being picked up by more and more news organizations.
When a so-called news organization starts doctoring photos to further their own partisan right wing agenda, people should start sitting up and taking notice. This is very sad and scary stuff.
-
I actually agree with this. I hope no one is bothering to prove that Weekly World News faked their Bat Boy photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can assure you that there's absolutely no need for the WWN to fake their Bat Boy photos. Bat Boys are a common sight here in New England; the Boston Red Sox have employed them for many years, and as far as I know, the little guys have served with distinction without posing a threat to the populace.
-
This seerms to be the Knickers in a Twist department today, so allow me to contribute.
First of all, I would love to have my hairline dropped - any hairline would be a welcome event in my book. Or on my head, come to think of it.
Right-wing devils. In the Sunday Times of 06.07.08 we have a charming little story by Rod Liddle where he tells of the fortunes or otherwise of the new Mayor of London, the Conservative Boris Johnson (time for all true lefties to cry boo!), whose chief political adviser, James McGrath, was let go after 12 days in office, and I quote "was kicked out 12 days ago for having replied rather brusquely to a black journalist who said that some Afro-Caribbean people who were affronted by Boris´s electoral victory might return to their country of origin as a consequence. ´Well, if they want to go, let them go,´ McGrath replied - and was promptly sacked for "racism" as a result. Quite a lot of peopple were appalled by McGrath´s peremptory removal for having said something which was not, by any stretch of the imagination, racist at all."
Terrible people, those right-wingers, killing off their own to placate those weeping liberals and their minority electorate. But then, somebody here wanted "scary stuff," is that scary enough?
Funny, too, how the right wing seems to have cornered the popular take on evil intent. Cast you minds back to Stalin and his millions of "disappeareds", to the numerous countries around the world whose leaders bought into the leftist fantasy of forced equality (from the muzzle of a gun) regardles of how different the obvious reality is between people; look no further than good old Britain and ask yourself why there is no longer any auto indusry there beyond some foreign-owned marques on the edge of extinction. The reason is always the same: industrial relations where a workforce was led by a Marxist minority pulling all the strings and being able to do so because of worker apathy. I know about this from my own first-hand experiences working in industry before becoming a photographer. Such leaders were never about "worker interests", they were about the destruction of a nation´s industrial and economic base. And they were pretty damn succesful.
So, let´s try to keep a sense of balance: all parties manipulate the "truth" to conform with what they want it to be; it is up to the sentient rest of us to try and keep them ALL in check, though how we will be able to continue to so do with only the increasingly powerless vote on our side is in itself cause for a certain alarm.
Rob C
-
I watched the unions destroy the rubber companies in Akron Ohio, where I worked in the 1970's. Left-wingers they were *not*. What all of that is is simple - a struggle for survival, or as Ron Hubbard would say - to *increase* one's survival potential, albeit at risk of ruin due to overreaching. But these forgeries are not the same - sure, Fox wants to increase their control of the public mind, but their evil propaganda will pollute the spiritual landscape for many years past its "usefulness" (like the racist propaganda of slave times), and we will all suffer for that. Let us appreciate the competitive struggle for life, but let us denounce the liars and forgerers before they ruin the future, before it has a chance at its own life.
-
Rob, we weren't talking about British Conservatives. The current crop of extremists in the U.S. who brand themselves conservatives are as different from British and Canadian Conservatives as American football is from British football. Despite holding power for many years now, the radicals have built nothing, solved nothing, and have failed at virtually everything they've attempted. (which of course is not their fault - the mythical liberal media are to blame) All that's left now are the death screams of the so-called neoconservative movement as its day mercifully nears its end. Driving out or marginalizing the voices of moderation can only ensure the doom of any political or social movement, (at least in the U.S.) and these folks have done their job admirably.
-
The scariest thing about the US neocon movement is the extent to which ordinary citizens buy into their propaganda. It reminds me a lot of Germany in the 1920s. Read into that what you will. If you can't recognize the extent of doctoring done to those photos (which is blatantly obvious to any objective viewer), then I can't help you (and no one else can either).
The first photo in particular has a lowered hairline, enlarged ears, enlarged chin, enlarged nose, bushier eyebrows, gaps added between teeth, darkening under the eyes, and yellowing of the teeth. This has nothing to do with aspect ratio, and is a result of photoshop manipulation, plain and simple.
It has been suggested by a number of news sources that Fox tried to make the first reporter look more "jewish". Yet another connection to 1920s Germany. The New York Times has taken exception to what Fox did, so this isn't just coming from MediaMatters. In fact, if you Google this, this is being picked up by more and more news organizations.
When a so-called news organization starts doctoring photos to further their own partisan right wing agenda, people should start sitting up and taking notice. This is very sad and scary stuff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My point was not that the photos aren't different, but that there is no reliable source of information here that proves Fox did it for some nefarious purpose. Media Matters is a commtted anti-Fox organization, and based on those two little jpegs, we can't know who did what when. I have no reason not to believe Media Matters didn't do the manipulation entirely on their own.
And the distortion is so extreme that it's impossible for me to belive it was an attempt to do some sort subliminal message sending. Why would you need to alter a picture of two people, when you're already running a story decrying something they've written? What would these images have done to change the message the Fox story was sending otherwise?
Those "Jewish" comments are outrageous and paranoic. For that to make any sense at all, you'd be suggesting that Fox veiwers are so reliably anti-semitic that making somene look "more Jewish" would be likely to turn them against the individuals in question. That's absurd, and proves whoever came up with that putrid ccmplaint doesn't know the first thing about Fox, or its viewers. And its competitors "take exception?" The old guys complain about the new guy who's taking away their business. Wow, who would have seen that coming?
The sad and scary stuff demonstrated by this controversy is that an advocacy group like Media Matters can generate a tempest over nearly anything, and legions of sheep will follow them without stopping to think if the accusation even makes any sense. You keep making all these Nazi allusions, yet what is your continued demonization of Fox, and their "partisan right wing agenda?" Seems like nothing too different to me than the same kind of blind chauvinism we're supposedly getting from Fox.
I've been interviewed for a number of TV news stories, by Fox and the other big TV networks. If you've ever spent much time around these people, you'd quickly realize that there is no such thing as an objective news organization, and probably never has been. Getting all wound up over something like this is kind of like arguing over football, or whether Ford is better than Chevy. Or whether MFDBs give a "3D" look...
-
I'm surprised they didn't have the two pictures doing a "terrorist fist jab".
-
Most people accept that agencies (news, political or otherwise) with a political point of view may have an axe to grind when they choose to report on certain stories or how they choose to report on them.
If the agency in question wanted to criticize the two journalists in question, then all they needed to do is to do just that. If they choose to do something childish like photoshop pics of the people in question, then I think it's a good thing to call them on their childishness.
However, attempting to read nefarious motives into the action is reaching, a little. I have worked in large organizations for half my career, and I don't think that concerted directed action is the norm. Usually what happens is that some twerp comes up with a stupid idea (e.g., photoshop the guy's ears) and nobody else on staff dares raise their hand to say, "That's dumb", because they're mostly afraid for their paycheques. After 30 years of working, I believe that that's how most decisions are made in the real world.
I don't agree that discussing this is the same as arguing about football or the best D-SLR, however. Journalism is SUPPOSED to be better than that. The fact that it's not, is NO reason not to point out its deficiencies (with the aim of improving the breed). I don't think it's a good idea to simply accept infotainment as inevitable and therefore not worth discussing.
If a news organization does do something childish like enlarge someone's ears, say, then I would hope that the organization in question would lose some credibility, thereby diminishing their impact. If they do it enough times, who would take them seriously about anything? I can only hope that we retain enough powers of discrimination to actually be able to tell the difference between credible and noncredible sources of information.
-
I don't agree that discussing this is the same as arguing about football or the best D-SLR, however. Journalism is SUPPOSED to be better than that. The fact that it's not, is NO reason not to point out its deficiencies (with the aim of improving the breed). I don't think it's a good idea to simply accept infotainment as inevitable and therefore not worth discussing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, that's a good point. Never argue from what is to what ought to be. Thing is, Media Matters has no more credibility than Fox (less, in my book). Unless Fox admits that those two images appeared exactly that way on their broadcast, I'm not taking Media Matters' word for it. If this issue keeps spinning, Fox will certainly bring it up, probably on the one of their comentator shows. Maybe we'll hear their explanation.
Actually, come to think of it, where is it written that journalism is "SUPPOSED to be better than that?" I think a lot of people would like that to be the case, but having dealt with reporters from the local to the national level, and been married to one for 20 years, that would never be my supposition. Perhaps a nice dream, or a fantasy or something.
Journalism has become a place for people "who want to make a difference," rather than just reporting the facts. Making a difference, to many of that bent, is all about politics and aspirations, which begets manipulation of information. Been that way at least since Dustin Hoffman played one on the big screen, and probably before that.
-
Which is probably a contributing factor to the downturn in newspaper and magazine sales - I doubt it´s all the fault of alternatives such as the internet. The credibility gap is fairly obvious already, but the additional problem here is that not everybody knows that there IS a credibility gap. You have but to listen to the readers of the tabloids having what passes for discussion: it is all taken verbatim; nothing much gets questioned: if it´s in the papers, in MY comic, then it must be true. You think I exaggerate? No way.
However, many do see through the spin and stop buying. Let´s face it, when celebrities become the top topics, followed closely by sport, things have indeed come to a pretty sad state of affairs, but that´s just the wheel of self destruction going ever faster, round and around; the more crap you publish then the more people, other than the morons, you alienate.
Thank goodnes for Lula; but that´s really saying thank goodness for us!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Thing is, Media Matters has no more credibility than Fox (less, in my book). Unless Fox admits that those two images appeared exactly that way on their broadcast, I'm not taking Media Matters' word for it. If this issue keeps spinning, Fox will certainly bring it up, probably on the one of their comentator shows. Maybe we'll hear their explanation.
Keep in mind that MediaMatters isn't the only organization accusing Fox of this. The New York Times is as well.
The thing is, knowing Fox, is anyone surprised that they would stoop to this? That's not the same as proving they did it, of course, but given that The New York Times is also accusing Fox of this, that's good enough for me.
Both Fox and MediaMatters are obviously politically motivated. The difference, in my mind, is that Fox bills itself as a news organization (a bogus assertion, but still, they fancy themselves journalists). So, if they claim to be a news organization, they should be held to higher standards. A "news" organization doctoring photos to advance a partisan political agenda should get people worried. This is the United States of America we're talking about, for crying out loud. When did such behavior become acceptable.
People got all upset a year or so ago when the AP published those doctored photos of Beirut burning. People rightly condemned the freelancer that did the doctoring. Why shouldn't Fox be held accountable for doing the same sort of thing.
I realize that you aren't convinced that Fox even doctored the photos (as far as I can tell, you agree that the photos are doctored, but aren't convinced that there's any evidence Fox did it). Fair enough. But the facts as I see them are that (1) The photos are obviously doctored, and (2) The New York Times believes Fox did it. And so far, I haven't heard any denials from Fox.
Anyway, I understand your position on this. For my part, however, the whole thing seems cut and dried. I will admit that I had my own motivations for posting this here, and I certainly have my own axe to grind on this. But my primary motivation is that I love my country and I fear what the Neocons, and their mouthpiece Fox, are doing to it. I'm genuinely concerned about the direction the Neocons are taking this country, their attacks on due process, their disrespect for the Geneva convention, their defense of torture (their denial even that things taken out of the Chinese torture manual are, in fact, actually torture), their hijacking of the war on terror for their own purposes in Iraq, their swiftboating of genuine american heros, their use of wiretapping without judicial oversight, and the list goes on and on.
When did all this sort of cr@p become acceptable, and how low have we sunk not to be up in arms over it.
-
Whoever wants us to believe that a major corp. like Fox will "just let" someone doctor photos like that, and won't object, is either extremely ignorant or is one of the artists who do those jobs. How do I know? I can tell you just like Liddy would tell you - people want it done so we do it.
-
Actually, come to think of it, where is it written that journalism is "SUPPOSED to be better than that?" I think a lot of people would like that to be the case, but having dealt with reporters from the local to the national level, and been married to one for 20 years, that would never be my supposition. Perhaps a nice dream, or a fantasy or something.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You may be correct, but I'd prefer that it be a goal rather than a dream or a fantasy.
-
How low have we sunk? Here's a refresher. Think of Kennedy's impossible challenge of 1961 - to land a man on the moon in eight years, when so many technologies didn't exist then. And they did it. Then the govt. laid out another challenge - to land a man on Mars by 1985. Think of the progress that would have brought. Instead we got Ronald Raygun, phony economics, phony assassinations, low-mileage SUV's (and subsequently all cars became low-mileage), redneck culture, phony wars, phony terror attacks, Dumb and Dumber (Beavis/Butthead), the list is endless. At least you can photograph some of this nonsense, until the food and water runs out and the masses rob you of your equipment to pay for the daily morsel.
-
How low have we sunk? Here's a refresher. Think of Kennedy's impossible challenge of 1961 - to land a man on the moon in eight years, when so many technologies didn't exist then. And they did it. Then the govt. laid out another challenge - to land a man on Mars by 1985. Think of the progress that would have brought. Instead we got Ronald Raygun, phony economics, phony assassinations, low-mileage SUV's (and subsequently all cars became low-mileage), redneck culture, phony wars, phony terror attacks, Dumb and Dumber (Beavis/Butthead), the list is endless. At least you can photograph some of this nonsense, until the food and water runs out and the masses rob you of your equipment to pay for the daily morsel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, that's a pretty jaundaced "refresher." You're clearly a "glass is half empty and will never possibly be full again" kind of guy.
In that time we've also had the end of the Soviet Union, an evil pall upon millions of souls to be sure. I guess that doesn't make up for your having to live in world where some other people might laugh at crude humor (And gee, before the 90s, there was never any crude humor. Ever heard of the 3 Stooges?).
I guess we're going to turn this discussion away from photography, and toward an opportunity to publish one's personal political littany. Not interested.
-
Ok, that's a pretty jaundaced "refresher." You're clearly a "glass is half empty and will never possibly be full again" kind of guy.
In that time we've also had the end of the Soviet Union, an evil pall upon millions of souls to be sure. I guess that doesn't make up for your having to live in world where some other people might laugh at crude humor (And gee, before the 90s, there was never any crude humor. Ever heard of the 3 Stooges?).
I guess we're going to turn this discussion away from photography, and toward an opportunity to publish one's personal political littany. Not interested.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not interested in your personal negativity or personal attacks, and neither is anyone else, unless they're your personal sycophants. What I am interested in are facts, which I presented. The world is full of good and bad, and to keep bad down, people like me expose it for what it is. We don't bury our heads in the sand, like you.
-
I'm not interested in your personal negativity or personal attacks, and neither is anyone else, unless they're your personal sycophants. What I am interested in are facts, which I presented. The world is full of good and bad, and to keep bad down, people like me expose it for what it is. We don't bury our heads in the sand, like you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey pal, anyone that writes 9/11 was "phony" is the one who truly has his head burried somewhere. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who lost a friend or a loved one in that tragedy, and when you casually start tossing that about with your other political rants, it touches a nerve or two. Sorry if you are so angry with the world, but that gives you no right to spout off swill like that.
-
Hey pal, anyone that writes 9/11 was "phony" is the one who truly has his head burried somewhere. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who lost a friend or a loved one in that tragedy, and when you casually start tossing that about with your other political rants, it touches a nerve or two. Sorry if you are so angry with the world, but that gives you no right to spout off swill like that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not your pal, I'm not angry (you are), and I don't see how your losses give you the right to sling accusations at me, just because I do real research while you suck up what the govt. and Fox news tell you. Sure it was a tragedy. That doesn't make you an expert. You should read more (real research) and spout off less.
-
I'm not your pal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Clearly.
I don't need to review your "research", because I was at the Pentagon in those days. Fox news did not provide me with my memory of the unique smell that arises from a combination of burning jet fuel, office equipment and human flesh, I assure you. No conspiracy nut is going to convince me they have "real" information that will somehow negate what those of us who were present saw with our own eyes. I wouldn't claim to be an "expert" about anything I haven't actually experienced either.
Which brings me to my main point. This thread is all about perception of bias from information sources. In a lot of cases, we can get many different streams of information about events from different sources. Some of the sources will be distorted by bias, either intentional or unintentional. Many times, we have no choice but to accept what one source or another says, because we have no other way to learn about the event in question.
But when one has firsthand information about something, one can immediately determine when one is being fed a pile of festering ooze by the press. I don't have a clue what your history is, but I have been directly involved in a number of events during my lifetime that were reported on by "respectable" news sources in a manner that diverges completely from what actually happened. I've been quoted by reporters as having said things that I wouldn't utter under the influence of strong intoxicants. I've seen an example or two of "facts" that I know to be entirely false simultaneously printed by different major national news organizations.
Some of that comes from sloppiness, or laziness, or just rushing to get the story out quickly. Other times, it's just a general bias against a person or organization. Some of it even comes from calculated manipulation by the reporters and editors themselves. You know when to expect that, because you'll usually be presented with a reporter who already has the story written, and is just fishing for a quote to back it up.
In my experience, there's no such thing as a dependable commercial news source. They've all got serious problems with balancing their personal opinion with objective treatment of facts. I don't expect anything else, because they're human (even my wife). The interesting thing is that it isn't always correlated politically by organization. In general, the big papers and TV networks lean left. Most of Fox's big name national commentators lean right, but at least they come out and say so, and don't hide behind some BS pretense of objectivity.
But from what I've seen, it seems that reportorial bias is concentrated more by where one falls in the pecking order. The local news guys are usually pretty fair, no matter who they work for. They'll ask a lot of questions, read documents you might give them, and usually put out a story that summarizes what they got from each of their sources. But the closer you get to the older big name writers and the national TV anchors, the more likely you are to encounter the guys with the pre-written stories.
About 13 years ago, I was interviewd by a local Fox TV reporter in a different city. Seemed like a nice guy, at that time. Really took a lot of time to understand the technical detals of the event, even though the story ended up only getting a couple minutes of air time, in a small market at that. He presented our point of view, and covered the other side too. He's an anchor in a big city now, and I admit I feel a little happy to see him doing well. I also ended up on one of the national weekend shows for a big-three TV network on that same story. The clown that did that one came in and took some footage, then went out and aired a piece chock full of technical mistakes. Never had time to ask us what was really going on. He was a big star though, so people trusted him.
And this is exactly what is eroding public confidence in the press. You can't tell people what they themselves saw, heard, or thought. The Times or a web site can say whatever they want about what I did, but I know what I did, and don't partcularly trust anyone who tries to tell me otherwise. How can they possibly know?
As to anger, yeah I suppose you frustrate me a tad. You're spouting your politcal mantra that, in part, contains statements that I know to be unsupported by reality, while at the same time attempting to hold yourself forth as the arbiter of all that is right and true. If we were talking Canon vs Nikon or something, it wouldn't grind me so much. In fact, I don't even mind reading your other posts elsewhere about matters photographic. But I think you've got a lot of nerve claiming anyone else has some kind of propaganda problem, when you're blithley going on about things you can't possibly have firsthand knowledge of. You have made some statements that very seriously attack people and organizations without any regard to how the might feel or think, yet you seem to decry when others do (what you percieve to be) the very same thing.
I don't fault you for your opinion, your motivation, or your attitude. I do object to your attempting to tell others what their motivation is. So sure you posess all the facts, eh?
-
I have friends who've had their parents put in concentration camps by the govt. you work for. I have relatives (in-laws) in Arizona whose grandparents were put in concentration camps in the late 1800's by the govt. you work for. You have no credibility. Just a lynchmob mentality. You make all sorts of phony charges ("unsupported"), yet you have no facts except "something fell on my head, so let's blame the Arabs". I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Oh yes, you belch up the "C" word like that will give you credibility. Not today.
-
Duplicate entry
-
I have friends who've had their parents put in concentration camps by the govt. you work for. I have relatives (in-laws) in Arizona whose grandparents were put in concentration camps in the late 1800's by the govt. you work for. You have no credibility. Just a lynchmob mentality. You make all sorts of phony charges ("unsupported"), yet you have no facts except "something fell on my head, so let's blame the Arabs". I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Oh yes, you belch up the "C" word like that will give you credibility. Not today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just curious, but how do you explain Al Qaeda taking credit for 9/11, not to mention other continued attacks all over the place? Ever read one of Bin Laden's manifestos?
And again, where do you get off lecturing me (or anyone esle) about my "mentality?" Have I said anything about rounding up any lynch mobs? This is my central concern with your line of reasoning. You throw out accustaions without stopping to think that there may be others out there who know something you don't. You really think you're so all-seeing that you can diagnose what motivates me and what I've experienced?
-
I think it's time to give it a rest, both of you.
Or else solve your differences the traditional, manly way: Go to a bar, drink a few beers, then go outside and beat each other senseless.
-
Just curious, but how do you explain Al Qaeda taking credit for 9/11, not to mention other continued attacks all over the place? Ever read one of Bin Laden's manifestos?
And again, where do you get off lecturing me (or anyone esle) about my "mentality?" Have I said anything about rounding up any lynch mobs? This is my central concern with your line of reasoning. You throw out accustaions without stopping to think that there may be others out there who know something you don't. You really think you're so all-seeing that you can diagnose what motivates me and what I've experienced?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't have to ask about your motivations - I can see your actions. You and your pals at the Pentagon launched a lynch-war against Iraq for no reason, and you lied to cover it up.
-
I think it's time to give it a rest, both of you.
Or else solve your differences the traditional, manly way: Go to a bar, drink a few beers, then go outside and beat each other senseless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have a better idea, boy. You go beat yourself senseless, then us civilized people who *discuss* problems will pick up the trash (i.e. you).
-
I have a better idea, boy. You go beat yourself senseless, then us civilized people who *discuss* problems will pick up the trash (i.e. you).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"boy?"
Now I remember why I kill filed you before.
-
"boy?"
Now I remember why I kill filed you before.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Congrats on your attempted, but failed kill file. You're a real winner.
-
Does anyone see a pattern here? The armchair warriors are scared to pick on anyone their own size (i.e. Russia, China), so they bully little people (i.e. Iraq) instead.
-
Dale,
I'm sorry you took offense at my comment (in spite of the smiley intended to lighten it a bit).
To clarify my point, it seems clear to me that you and Misirlou have dug in your heels on this and neither of you is going to persuade the other to budge. And the past few posts by both of you seem to have gotten pretty far from photography, which is why I thought it best to suggest that the two of you stop.
It was only my suggestion, so if the two of you want to continue your 'discussion', that's up to you (and Michael).
Just to do my best to offend Misirlou as much as I seem to have offended you, I'll state that my own view is that
1. Those photos were obviously doctored with malicious intent;
2. Given Fox's unsavory reputation, I consider it highly likely that they were the ones who doctored them, and not Media Watch; and
3. I consider the NY Times a much more reliable (but not infallible) source of news than Fox.
Cheers,
-Eric (aka "Boy")
-
Dale,
I'm sorry you took offense at my comment (in spite of the smiley intended to lighten it a bit).
To clarify my point, it seems clear to me that you and Misirlou have dug in your heels on this and neither of you is going to persuade the other to budge. And the past few posts by both of you seem to have gotten pretty far from photography, which is why I thought it best to suggest that the two of you stop.
It was only my suggestion, so if the two of you want to continue your 'discussion', that's up to you (and Michael).
Just to do my best to offend Misirlou as much as I seem to have offended you, I'll state that my own view is that
1. Those photos were obviously doctored with malicious intent;
2. Given Fox's unsavory reputation, I consider it highly likely that they were the ones who doctored them, and not Media Watch; and
3. I consider the NY Times a much more reliable (but not infallible) source of news than Fox.
Cheers,
-Eric (aka "Boy")
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the clarification. When I was a kid (no, I won't go there), my teacher used to quip "Confucious said 'to him that taketh offense, let him also take the gate'" A small pun. I don't see a real problem, just a misunderstanding because we're thinking at different levels (doesn't matter which level, just different). We should be sensitive enough to realize, however, that the U.S. (for example) is the Foreign Occupation Govt. in Iraq, and the "insurgents" are probably in most cases fighting for their country's liberation. I was in the Army for 3 years, and I did my jobs with much positive attitude. And when I left, I was perfectly willing to accept criticism of same, even if it stung a bit. My wish is that Fox for example would become less hypocritical - they're entitled to have an agenda I suppose.