Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 08:27 AM

Little Green Footballs was so all over this that Rooters pulled this pic...

LGF was the blog that put the nail in Rather's memos.

Note that the photographer that faked this photo is the guy that took all of those staged photos at Qana. Concidence?

The "media" has apparently picked sides as usual.
Solution reporting. Pure crap.

At first I was skeptical about the media having an agenda. A leftist agenda.
But the evidence continues to mount.
And the public is buying their bullshit hook line and sinker.
Idiots.

Saad · Aug 6, 2006, 08:31 AM

Being pro-Lebanon doesn't make you liberal. Merkel supports Lebanon.

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 08:33 AM

Merkel is a liar and a propaghanda spreader. And anti Israel.
And a leftist tool.

Saad · Aug 6, 2006, 09:17 AM

How is she a liar and propagandist?

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 10:38 AM

Works as a "journalist".
That's the only requirement.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 10:41 AM

Do you read the forum before posting new topics?

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Do you read the forum before posting new topics?

READ MY REPLY IN HIS TOPIC.
So I'll pose the same question.

Do you read thethreads before replying?

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 11:15 AM

No, I don't read entire threads that I've already read and weren't very interesting the first time. Anyway, it seemed like the "Oh, don't reply to this one" notice should have gone in this thread. So, it's here now.

Kevin · Aug 6, 2006, 11:26 AM

Now you got to ask yourself, WHY would someone Photoshop a such an event to look WORSE than it was?

What would be the purpose?

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 11:39 AM

No need, the answer is obvious.
The media has a leftist, anti-Isreal, anti-semite agenda.
And it's accepted by French ambassadors.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 11:42 AM

Actually, the obvious answer is that making it look worse makes the image more impressive, which is good for the photographer's wallet.

Kevin · Aug 6, 2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Actually, the obvious answer is that making it look worse makes the image more impressive, which is good for the photographer's wallet.

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 11:46 AM

The "journalist" should be fined into poverty.
And never be allowed to spread his anti-semite hate again.

Eug · Aug 6, 2006, 12:03 PM

wrong thread. oops.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that everything was a grand political conspiracy against your folk and people never do anything wrong out of simple human greed.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The "journalist" should be fined into poverty.
And never be allowed to spread his anti-semite hate again.

Did you know that holding offensive opinions — such as the idea that people should be fined for their feelings — is actually legal in America? You should be glad!

Kevin · Aug 6, 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that everything was a grand political conspiracy against your folk and people never do anything wrong out of simple human greed.

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Did you know that holding offensive opinions — such as the idea that people should be fined for their feelings — is actually legal in America? You should be glad!

But feeding absolute garbage as the truth is illegal.

Opinion is one thing, Absolute lies are something else.
There inlies the difference.
They I thought you would have grasped.
Apparently not.

Eug · Aug 6, 2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Good post Kevin. That comic suits you perfectly.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 01:01 PM

If you think it's an exaggeration to say it couldn't possibly be human greed, Kevin, why did you make an eye-rolling smily when I suggested human greed was at fault?

Kevin · Aug 6, 2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Good post Kevin. That comic suits you perfectly.

Wow Eug, that was a really really really really good one. You got me there.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If you think it's an exaggeration to say it couldn't possibly be human greed, Kevin, why did you make an eye-rolling smily when I suggested human greed was at fault?

Was Dan Rather's human greed as well?

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Was Dan Rather's human greed as well?

No. I don't think Dan Rather was involved in this, though, so I'm not sure how he's relevant.

Kevin · Aug 6, 2006, 01:09 PM

It's a similar situation. Normally people don't do such things, as it doesn't bring in THAT much more money.

BRussell · Aug 6, 2006, 01:13 PM

Isn't there already a thread on this?

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 01:15 PM

Yeah, but we need two. Really.

Chuckit · 01:31 PM

Having better photos doesn't bring in more money for a photographer? What?

Anyway, photographers are constantly trying to tweak their shots to make them better. It seems pretty reactionary to me to see a photo that has been photoshopped to be more impressive and immediately think "ZOMG BIAS!!!" when there is a more common explanation available. I'm not even saying there definitely wasn't bias involved, just that there is a more likely explanation given the evidence we have now.

BRussell · Aug 6, 2006, 01:19 PM

I'm just happy for you conservatives. What with the anti-science religionists controlling you, the deficit, the economy, foreign policy failing miserably, the Paris Hilton taxcut failure, and the American public turned squarely against you, at least you have a poorly-photoshopped war picture to get excited about.

Sky Captain · Aug 6, 2006, 01:41 PM

It's not just this example.
There's mounting evidence against the "news media".
From Time

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error

They continue to spoon feed sensationalism to th eunwary public.

As General Sherman once said "If I rounded up all the reporters and shot them, we'd have news from Hell before breakfast".

Saad · Aug 6, 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The "journalist" should be fined into poverty.
And never be allowed to spread his anti-semite hate again.

Being distraught over the destruction of Beirut is not ant-Semitic, nor is modifying photographs. It's misleading and stupid, not anti-semitic.

PacHead · Aug 6, 2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Having better photos doesn't bring in more money for a photographer? What?

Having faked photos tends to ruin a photographer's career, such as the pro-terrorist photographer is guilty of.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

It's not just this example.
There's mounting evidence against the "news media".
From Time

They continue to spoon feed sensationalism to th eunwary public.

Time made an error and corrected it…and this proves that "they continue to spoon feed sensationalism to the unwary public"? I think your logic is broken.

Chuckit · Aug 6, 2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Having faked photos tends to ruin a photographer's career, such as the pro-terrorist photographer is guilty of.

Having faked photos also doesn't work for propaganda. In either case, I think we can assume he didn't believe he'd be caught.

PacHead · Aug 6, 2006, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

In either case, I think we can assume he didn't believe he'd be caught.

The idiot lying photographer probably didn't believe he'd be caught, does that change anything ? Luckily his extremely amateurish and incompetant photoshop job was quickly discovered.

Mark Larr · Aug 6, 2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

The idiot lying photographer probably didn't believe he'd be caught, does that change anything ? Luckily his extremely amateurish and incompetant photoshop job was quickly discovered.

Except for the fact that all of the leftist, pro-terrorist jack booted, lock-in-step joo haters believe they were real.

Kevin · Aug 6, 2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm just happy for you conservatives. What with the anti-science religionists controlling you, the deficit, the economy, foreign policy failing miserably, the Paris Hilton taxcut failure, and the American public turned squarely against you, at least you have a poorly-photoshopped war picture to get excited about.

Ah more hyperbole.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Aug 7, 2006, 03:39 AM

Speaking of Rather, he deserves some credit for owning up to 'moral equivalence' in the media, and that it's a problem.

Appearing on FNC's The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather conceded there's a "problem" with America's media in its treatment of Hezbollah and Israel with "moral equivalence," even including himself as part of the problem.

As host Bill O'Reilly brought up the topic, stating his criticism that "Some networks give moral equivalency to Hezbollah in the reporting of this war," Rather voiced agreement and went on to acknowledge the media's reluctance to label Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization."

Rather: "It's a problem that those of us in journalism have been reluctant to address -- I do not exclude myself from this criticism -- reluctant to address that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. It's committed to the destruction of Israel. It isn't committed to trying to just gain territory. It's committed to its destruction."

Even though he's basically stating the obvious (to non-leftists), even being this close to honest has to be counted as a major step forward for Rather!