Posted on 08/05/2006 3:52:31 PM PDT by Hadean
"This is such a joke, but it makes you wonder how many skilled retouchers are doctoring the photos and news presented as journalism today?"
Aye, there's the rub!
I like that!
I spent 4 years working in a brigade level medical supply warehouse in the Army. I can't think of anything that would be medical supplies that would be packed in a box that shape and size. Of course, it could be a large box full of smaller boxes of whatever.
Sort of long rant:
For every article from the MSM shouldn't there be a disclaimer going "could be false" or a barf alert here. It is surprising how many times they've got the news wrong, they still exist, and their lackeys still lap up the warm milk. Honestly, it is funny how Anti-Big Business Liberals are yet love the MSM.
I personally think that all of this awkward reporting is done because they feel like it is their responsibility to be the loyal opposition to the executive branch sort of like the Democratic Party now and that they are fair and impartial. It is weird how they take those two issues to the extreme, and float them to make them like Gods. I wonder if people can do a modern poll on who journalists will vote for in 2006, I bet you that besides Murdoch there must be a good amount of support for Hillary in the news divisions.
I do remember working in class for Newspaper twice, and I do remember that my teacher(a self-proclaimed Socialist) talked about show not just tell, which is good advice, but there is only a line between an editorial and a newspiece. People with strong opinions should do editorials, people with curious ones should do the news.
Indeed, I've been mistrusting the News since 1999 or before. I always got angry at how they treated tragedy, depression and negative stories as better than positive ones. I also couldn't handle the operatic melodrama that permeates the news, making West Nile seem like 9/11, which is how I perceived the news at the time. Now their tragedy gears of fortune are out there in Iraq, painting the bleakest pictures of that country. I know this is a long rant, but I want to vent right now.
You know, it is funny how dramatic the "news of a civil war" is when that has been the prediction of the Nostradamuses of the News Organs. Nor, shall I say that the AP has, as its managing editor(I think), a Liberal Democrat which probably is why all of their Iraq reports I've read, though they can be fair, usually end with no WMDs were found. I even remember my radio station doing the news(well, my local Country radio station) and all about Iraq is about how people have died. If you needed to know the progress, you're gonna have to dig deep. Even the stories on supposed WMDs, were cleaned off the sheets by Democratic "fact-checkers" who will only be satisfied if we lose.
I don't like the news that much, it ruins my heartstring, and potentially bad news that isn't fact-checked can give someone a heart attack with the highly emotional coverage. It is even weirder when, I think that this is what my teacher talked about, we were supposed to give our sources. Personally, I am a little sick of every source acting like they are Secret Agent People and that they are into espionage. I think that this is part of Liberal paranoia. For all I know, if Bill Clinton was admired by the press, they might've feared him because of what he had done with some Conservative publications. I wonder if any Liberal would admit that.
I blew it up in my image manipulation software and what I see is consistant with the type of artifacting you get when compressing an imaging using something like the JPEG (.jpg) standard. The fine pixels are artifacts of the compression, not of photoshopping.
No, I'm not defending Hajj or Reuters as their photoshopping and pro-Islamofascist terrorist fraud is intolerable. I just want to report my observations on the issue that you brought up about the specific photo you referenced.
Why would you get the pixels around the guy and the foreground while the background is rather smooth?
I'm now wondering whether this comparison photo of the Beiruit city block might be another propaganda piece, resulting from judicious application of the "smudge" tool in Photoshop.
1996! That's old school! There wasn't even any Free Republic website back then! So I guess that settles it, Billybob. You can stop taking credit for the term now.
I'm now wondering whether this comparison photo of the Beiruit city block might be another propaganda piece, resulting from judicious application of the "smudge" tool in Photoshop.
That's an interesting thought. The photo is reminiscent of Dresden, and yet in no other Lebanon pictures have we seen destruction of that magnitude and intensity.
Have you seen this? Unbelievable! Even I could have Photoshopped it better.
has anyone else noticed the multiple copies of buildings too?
In a 600+ thread, it's best to catch up before replying to a post on the first page.
Good job Hadean!
LOL... seeing that now...Suprised no else mentioned it before the 50th post
Likewise. I would also add that it looks like the "burn" tool was used to create the darker shadows under the "smoke". There is too cllear a demarcation line near the bottom of the photo.
I did not see the story on the news until late this afternoon. The doctoring was REALLY lame and laughable. The conclusion I came to after Reuters admitted it was that they let it go by and did not give a damn because they KNEW that the hundreds of papers in the muslim world would buy it and the masses of barely educated citizens would accept them as real. The damage is already done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.