Pictures that lie. Photoshop in the press . . .

JEK

Senior Insider
soldiers1_350x246.jpg


This digital composite of a British soldier in Basra, gesturing to Iraqi civilians urging them to seek cover, appeared in April 2003 on the front page of the Los Angeles Times shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Brian Walski, a staff photographer for the Los Angeles Times and a 30-year veteran of the news business, was fired after his editors discovered that he had combined two of his photographs (1, 2) to "improve" the composition.

See the whole series here:CNET
 
If you've seen the recently released photographs of Fidel Castro allegedly post-operative - there is a lot of speculation to the effect that the photographs were taken pre-operation and perhaps even several years ago.
 
Now wait a minute here...are you telling me that it's POSSIBLE that those Wicked Weasel photos may not be legit???
 
Now wait a minute here...are you telling me that it's POSSIBLE that those Wicked Weasel photos may not be legit???

To the best of my knowledge the WW pics are for real LOL - now maybe some enterprising poster on this forum can use a certain program to unite a WW contestant with one of the recently released photograph of the great Fidel -
that would be too funny.
 
If you've seen the recently released photographs of Fidel Castro allegedly post-operative - there is a lot of speculation to the effect that the photographs were taken pre-operation and perhaps even several years ago.

George,
I was suspect of that first image, but these seem to be real.
More Fidel images emerge
 
I'm with Elsie. Television infotainment shows routinely use whatever file footage they think might grab the public to match with a given story. I think the practice stinks. If they were truly reporting the news, all footage not specifically related to the story at hand should be prominently so labelled.
 
Back In The Day, there was a pretty sharp line between what had a great degree of credibility and what did not.

We all knew that certain "newspapers" at the checkout stand of our local grocery stores were not always completely factual. Even so, we clung to the vain hope that Elvis really had been spotted in Sheboygan or that an alien had landed and revealled a super new diet.

But, for REAL news, we turned on the tele and watched The Big Three, which eventually became The Big Four (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN). We accepted that certain editorial liberties would be taken from time to time (FDR spent most of his time in a wheelchair, news photos notwithstanding). And we also knew that stories could be shaped by any political wind blowing strongly enough.

But we never thought that so-called "news" was actually being fabricated - that is, being made up. Eventually, the admission by CNN that they had "decorated" reports out of Iraq to get exclusive access should have been our clarion call. Yet some still hopefully clung to the ruse that our news was actually news.

After a while, we became cynical due to the numerous invented stories - be they parsed pictures or out and out fabrications. One man's Swift Boat might be another man's ROTC records. And when Trusted Journalists sat there on their nightly reports and told us that they - alone in the world - were STILL standing by their reports (even though their Deep Throat had already been discreditted) some of us just turned those storytellers off altogether.

So where does that leave the intellectually honest among us? Pretty much in the dark. Oh sure, we can go to Google News and survey a large variety of selected sources. And that seems perhaps to be the best way to try and make something intelligible out of the fantasy known as media news today. Even there, we have to accept that we can't accept everything we read.

I never watch any of the network stuff anymore, be it Fox, ABC or CNN. In their lust for sales, their sensationalism too often crosses the line from slanting a story to actually making one up. The catelogue of lies told to us, particularly by the We Hate Him crowd (substitute whichever Him is being hated at the time) convinces the intellectually honest among us that you can't really trust any of the lot.

Of The Big Five, it seems pretty clear that some are worse than others when provable lies are counted. Even so, everyone has their slant.

So you are left to fall back on your world view, your innate basic philosophy, and try to see what makes sense based on what you know or believe to be true.

It is a sad state we have reached in this country when I not only no longer believe most of what gets reported on some of the major networks, I actively disbelieve most of it when I consider the source.

There are only too many times these folks can lie to me and get a free pass and they have overstepped that line long ago.
 
Re: FOX will have a special tonight on this story...

If they kidnapped the entire FOX News crew it wouldn't be a big loss. Let them come back after the presidential election.
 
Re: FOX will have a special tonight on this story...

Agree. "The Fair & Balanced Network"...could actually be an arm of the White House information office...at least they should be up front with their political philosophy...
 
I have always been leery of One Issue Groups. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, if you base all your votes on that one litmus test, you seem kind of nutty in my book. Ditto taxes, welfare, immigration, civil rights, defense, whatever. Anyone so focused on one and only one issue is too much a zealot for my tastes.

At this point, the once proud Democratic Party has been reduced to a one issue party. Their one trick, the only plank they are running on, is We Hate George Bush.

After several years of almost the entire american media (save Fox) pounding the view, it has been hammered into an entire platform for the next two elections. And, because of the constant barrage, it appears that the elections will go the way of the Democrats (if polls are to be believed).

Then what?

Socialized medicine? Enormous tax increases? Abandon Iraq to Iran? Withdraw from the region and wait for the UN to line its pockets in more oil for money for nukes scams?

There is no question that the GOP has stumbled here and there (although unemployment and GDP growth are both QUITE acceptable, as is Dubya's record of no attacks on our soil in the last five years). And abandoning traditional GOP principles is going to cost them dearly at the poll. No doubt.

But after youze guys take over, then what?

Will all the problems disappear? Will enormous tax increases solve them? Will the UN?

Okay, you guys hate George Bush. We get it. We understand. But dont tell us what you are running AGAINST. How about tell us what you are running FOR? Dont tell us what you hate about now. Tell us what you are going to DO about the problems that we have now.

I think, personally, that the next president will face enormous challenges. Fortunately, there wont be a polarized and poisoned political process to hamper him/her in our hour of need (tongue FIRMLY in cheek).

Ugh.
 
I have always been leery of One Issue Groups. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, if you base all your votes on that one litmus test, you seem kind of nutty in my book. Ditto taxes, welfare, immigration, civil rights, defense, whatever. Anyone so focused on one and only one issue is too much a zealot for my tastes.

At this point, the once proud Democratic Party has been reduced to a one issue party. Their one trick, the only plank they are running on, is We Hate George Bush.

After several years of almost the entire american media (save Fox) pounding the view, it has been hammered into an entire platform for the next two elections. And, because of the constant barrage, it appears that the elections will go the way of the Democrats (if polls are to be believed).

Then what?

Socialized medicine? Enormous tax increases? Abandon Iraq to Iran? Withdraw from the region and wait for the UN to line its pockets in more oil for money for nukes scams?

There is no question that the GOP has stumbled here and there (although unemployment and GDP growth are both QUITE acceptable, as is Dubya's record of no attacks on our soil in the last five years). And abandoning traditional GOP principles is going to cost them dearly at the poll. No doubt.

But after youze guys take over, then what?

Will all the problems disappear? Will enormous tax increases solve them? Will the UN?

Okay, you guys hate George Bush. We get it. We understand. But dont tell us what you are running AGAINST. How about tell us what you are running FOR? Dont tell us what you hate about now. Tell us what you are going to DO about the problems that we have now.

I think, personally, that the next president will face enormous challenges. Fortunately, there wont be a polarized and poisoned political process to hamper him/her in our hour of need (tongue FIRMLY in cheek).

Ugh.

I'm a Republican too. I just thought Dick looked like Bernie.
 
Top