Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: More Doctored Photos  (Read 11498 times)
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 499


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2008, 11:14:01 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2008, 02:45:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2008, 03:47:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Which is probably a contributing factor to the downturn in newspaper and magazine sales - I doubt itīs 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 itīs 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. Letīs face it, when celebrities become the top topics, followed  closely by sport, things have indeed come to a pretty sad state of affairs, but thatīs 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 thatīs really saying thank goodness for us!

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2008, 06:26:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2008, 06:37:50 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 499


WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2008, 08:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2008, 10:29:54 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2008, 10:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2008, 02:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2008, 03:59:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2008, 10:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2008, 12:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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?
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2008, 05:12:11 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2008, 05:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Duplicate entry
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 05:20:52 AM by dalethorn » Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2008, 08:13:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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?
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8214



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2008, 08:47:25 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

 
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2008, 09:08:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2008, 09:11:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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).
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2008, 10:07:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2008, 10:16:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"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.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad