News: Smoke and Mirrors?

[MK]

I found this interesting:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Somebody is messing with us. You decide who.

 

[Big Man]

This is nothing new. Remember the events leading up to the Spanish American War and how the "news media" of the day influenced public opinion?

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Why am I not suprised.

 

[jamespowers]

I found this interesting:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Somebody is messing with us. You decide who.

If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. Mark Twain.
That said it all in this. I had heard about a few incidents but obviously I missed a few. :eusa_doh: All I can say is that it just makes me second guess everything I read. Thank goodness for the internet or they would be getting away with this stuff ad nauseum. :eusa_clap I wonder how many times our parents got hood winked before the information age.

Regards,

J

 

[Matt Deckard]

I wish they could leave the trick photographty to me.

Look here I am 3 years ago on Sideways world.

 

[Phil]

Interesting...very interesting. I id question some of the images seen in the papers.I questioned mainly those inages with Mickey and Minnie Mouse. If they hate us so much, then why do they have what is possibly one of the most American icons? This is a better mini-documentray than "Loose Change".

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yep, images can be misleading. Intentionally or otherwise.

bk

 

[Serial Hero]

Photo's lie. They have been since the camera was invented.

Just look at old Civil War photos. Half of them were staged or mislabeled.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The simple matter of what lens you use can lead to a completely different picture emerging from the photo.

And selective cropping when transferring from the negative to paper.

So many ways to manipulate a photograph.

bk

 

[Pilgrim]

They definitely point out some unethically altered photos! Reuters broke the story about their photog a couple of days ago, but I hadn't heard about the other photos.

Please DO note in passing that the authors of the online story are giving the story their OWN spin. Their story characterizes the photos as giving the impression that Israel is more violent than it really is, and states that the result is more international pressure on Israel. This is story implies the media are conspiring to give Israel a bad image. (I love conspiracy stories...they are often dead giveaways for the author's own opinions.)

If you back up and check the root site for this story: http://www.aish.com/, you will see that it is described in the text toward the bottom of the page as a non-profit organization, and: "Aish HaTorah is a non-profit, apolitical network of Jewish educational centers, with 25 branches on 5 continents. This very obviously places the website on the Israeli side of the conflict.

So while I deplore the doctored photos, let's note that this website is very much serving its own interests by spinning the story toward its own political agenda.

 

[jamespowers]

They definitely point out some unethically altered photos! Reuters broke the story about their photog a couple of days ago, but I hadn't heard about the other photos.

Please DO note in passing that the authors of the online story are giving the story their OWN spin. Their story characterizes the photos as giving the impression that Israel is more violent than it really is, and states that the result is more international pressure on Israel. This is story implies the media are conspiring to give Israel a bad image. (I love conspiracy stories...they are often dead giveaways for the author's own opinions.)

If you back up and check the root site for this story: http://www.aish.com/, you will see that it is described in the text toward the bottom of the page as a non-profit organization, and: "Aish HaTorah is a non-profit, apolitical network of Jewish educational centers, with 25 branches on 5 continents. This very obviously places the website on the Israeli side of the conflict.

So while I deplore the doctored photos, let's note that this website is very much serving its own interests by spinning the story toward its own political agenda.

What does this all mean? [huh] The truth is subject scrutiny based on where it comes from? The photos were doctored. Period. Who cares who brought the deception to light? Wrong is wrong.

Regards,

J

 

[Pilgrim]

I agree completely, James!

Doctored is doctored - wrong is wrong.

I just thought it worthwhile to point out that the potential to be misled doesn't stop with newspapers, radio or TV - it's certainly present online as well, and the video story definitely had its own agenda.

 

[jamespowers]

I just thought it worthwhile to point out that the potential to be misled doesn't stop with newspapers, radio or TV - it's certainly present online as well, and the video story definitely had its own agenda

Oh boy here we go.

 

[LolitaHaze]

Very interesting...

 

[Pilgrim]

James, please. I have no agenda in my posts in this thread - I'm just pointing out that every news report needs to be evaluated based on its source. It's that simple. No big deal.

 

[Lady Day]

The Daily Show interestingly enough covered this 'faux pah' and that the photographer Photoshopped' the image. Anything to sell a photo, eh? :eusa_doh:
*sheesh*

LD

 

[Terry Lennox]

James, please. I have no agenda in my posts in this thread - I'm just pointing out that every news report needs to be evaluated based on its source. It's that simple. No big deal.

I agree 100%.

It's called spin. Only this time it's spin on spin.

 

[jake_fink]

This reminds me of the story of the Kuwati babies pulled out of incubators and left to die on the floor.

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City.

But after the war... oops. The 15 year old Kuwati girl known only as Nayirah just happened to be the Kuwati ambassador's daughter, and she was in Washington at the time the events were "taking Place' not in Kuwait.

Following the war, human rights investigators attempted to confirm Nayirah's story and could find no witnesses or other evidence to support it. Amnesty International, which had fallen for the story, was forced to issue an embarrassing retraction. Nayirah herself was unavailable for comment. "This is the first allegation I've had that she was the ambassador's daughter," said Human Rights Caucus co-chair John Porter. "Yes, I think people . . . were entitled to know the source of her testimony." When journalists for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked Nasir al-Sabah for permission to question Nayirah about her story, the ambassador angrily refused.

The Full PR Watch Article quoted above.


Somebody's always messing with us. We're so gullible and easy to twist.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Jean Baudrillard has some interesting things to say about media manipulation. Particularly interesting his views re. Gulf War I

bk

 

[Quigley Brown]

I could tell right off the bat that it was Photoshopped. I'm suprised it got so far as it did.