"man shoots at robber and accidentally kills neighbor". "man goes on murderous rampage, killing his neighbor". Both have a man. Both have him killing someone. One says its an accident. The other says it was murder. The second doesn't materially change the story. Still has someone killing another...what's the point and why the outcry.
The fiction is that Israel is destroying all of Lebanon and all of Beirut. The truth is that very small sections of Beirut have been surgically attacked. The extra smoke and buildings simple create the second story that there's more death, more destruction, more 'evil' than the first. A lie by addition in the most visible way possible. >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? > > On 8/7/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> So, so far, this has received fairly extensive coverage. >> >> CNN, MSNBC and Fox having been running the story about every 3 hours, >> the blogger at littlegreenfootballs has been all over the air, Reuters >> has pulled every photo by the guy pending review, they have already >> admitted to finding at least 2 other doctored photos (although cnn >> only showed one, a picture of an Israeli jet firing a flare, and he >> copied the flare two more times for a false total of 3), and the news >> stations and bloggers are talking about the photos he shot in Qana, >> how they look to be "staged", and whether this differs from direct >> photo manipulation in any meaningful way. >> >> Now, I have to admit I am a little bit unclear as to the motives of >> this @ss-clown. >> >> A small piece of my mind says this is somehow politically motivated, >> but if so, he is an idiot. The pictures he digitally doctored are not >> any worse in their doctored version than the original was. >> >> The rest of my mind says he was doing this as a regular human being >> (read weak selfish jerk), and doctored and staged the stuff to get his >> photos bought, higher rates for the photos, purely greedy personal >> motives that could (and probably do) happen all the time. >> >> The political side I see is that Reuters appears to pay less editorial >> attention to stories against the US and Israel, and are willing to let >> more "propeganda" slide if it in the "against" column rather than the >> "for" column. >> >> Over the next few days, we will see if Reuters is serious, and if it >> fires the guy for good after the dust settles, or if they forgive him >> later, and reinstate him. For me, that will be the test of whether >> Reuters was complicate or just lazy and foolish. >> >> >> On 8/5/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I've been against the media when it comes to truth for a long time and >> > I >> love it when they prove me right. Look at this official reuters photo: >> > >> http://photos.reuters.com/news/newsPhotoPresentation.aspx?type=photoSearch&imageID=2006-08-05T193003Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-COL.XML >> > >> > Looks like Israel is just blowing away any part of Beirut that they >> want. Look at these analysis of the photo and tell me again what's >> happening: >> > >> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only >> > >> > As with many other analysis of the media's 'attention' to the middle >> east, there's a real question of truth here, or lack of it. At least >> that's >> what it looks like to me. >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:212974 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
