MLUG: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline
Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline
Email address obfuscation in effect -- please click here to turn it off.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On 9/6/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Vern Green wrote:

> OK so some proof of bias, I cannot vouch for all of these examples and
> granted they are the product of the photographers in the field, yet the
> newspapers in question ran these photos to what end? Why would you have
> to use staged photos of a war zone? Isn't there enough tragedy to choose
> from without making some up? Shame on the photographers, though I cannot
> really blame them as they are just trying to make a name for themselves,
> but there is no excuse for the newspapers to run these obvious fake
> photos.
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/


That is a web page produced by Some Guy. Er, no, he does have a name. His name is Zombie. That doesn't mean he isn't credible, but how do I know that some of these really ran in Reuters, as he claims? Well, there is the Reuters article below.

It is remarkable that they published the one with cloned smoke -- it looks
really fake.  Also, the genuine one looked better and no less dramatic.  I
really didn't see the point.

Regarding the woman who is said to be shown morning the destruction of her
home -- three times and three different homes.  I'm sorry, but I cannot
tell that that is the same woman in all three photos.  If it is, great,
the photographer has been caught.  Still, it has nothing to do with "bias
in the media" because it is just one cheating photographer trying to make
more money selling photos.  That isn't "bias."

No I think I mentioned that in my original post. However, when the NY Times uses the images and puts sensational headlines with them when they are very clearly fake, then even you have to ask a question, Why?

Of course, if this had been Fox News, you would have been arguing that
the apology from Rueters was not one of being sorry for putting out
doctored images. You would be saying the apology would be more about
being sorry they got caught putting out doctored images.


-- Thanks F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion