I was thinking more of the one someone was describing where there were three plumes of smoke instead of one. It should not take place in a news photo, and if you re-read me you'll see I said that.
However, if there was in fact an air strike I don't see the point, especially of doctoring the photo, but of having a heart attack over it either. I smell red herring. We've seen a lot of that here lately -- forged documents and pointed fingers. It's becoming quite a theme of this decade. As for the dead civilian, I perhaps have the benefit of clicking the link to that blog later than the rest of you. The Times is now saying that the man was injured *while* he was showing the photographer something, but was not killed. Meanwhile, what I see is a very amateurish site that specializes in accusing the mainstream media of lying. And *I'm* biased. oh-kaaay. Dana On 8/10/06, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You serious? > > It DOES materially change the story. Especially having that one guy lay > down > and pretend to be injured!!!! I mean....geeeesh. > > On 8/9/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I guess I don't see the issue. No, no news photo should be doctored. Not > > if > > it calls itself a news photo. But if it doesn't materially change the > > story... what's the point and why the outcry? > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:212932 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
