NY Times photographer: "Don't trust anything you see on TV"

Media Research Center's Cyberalert ^ | November 6, 2001 | Brent Baker

[Mr. Mulliner]

Don't trust the media, at least not CNN. Says who? A new York Times photographer in Pakistan. Catching up with an item caught last week by Jim Romenesko's MediaNews, on a Web page for sports photographers Vincent Laforet advised: "Don't trust anything you see on TV and be wary of some of the things you read." The Times photographer revealed: "We covered a pro-Taliban demonstration last week attended by maybe 5,000 protestors. CNN stated there were 50,000."

In a lengthy recounting of his travails about photographing in Pakistan, Laforet wrote:

"Speaking of the media, I have but one thing to tell you. Don't trust anything you see on TV and be weary of some of the things you read. I witnessed how sensationalistic the media can be during the Florida recount. It's even worse here. We covered a pro-Taliban demonstration last week attended by maybe 5,000 protestors. CNN stated there were 50,000. The BBC estimated 40,000. We're continually hearing of "violent clashes with police" when the TV stations report on non-violent demonstrations we covered ourselves."

To read his dispatch in full, illustrated by some of his photos, go to this address and scroll down to the second story: http://www.manginphotography.com/sptshtr36.html

Since he offered no date, it's hard to correlate his statement with what CNN actually reported that day.

[Tourist Guy]

Hey, it pays the bills.

[E.G.C.]

BUMP FOR ANOTHER EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!

[Gasshog]

Hey! CNN!

And all liars whos names were not found in the Book of Life were cast into the lake of fire.

Hope I quoted that right...

^____^

[Nogbad]

I don't watch CNN because I can't stomach it,
but I do watch the BBC at least for a few minutes each night,
and it is transparently clear that many of the 'demonstrations' they show are staged
(by the BBC, of course)

[Skooz]

The media regularly exaggerates the numbers from demonstrations they consider their sacred cows such as abortion, gun-grabbing, and gay rights. And they regularly shrink the numbers at rallies of conservatives.

In 1989(?) pro-life demonstrators marched in Washington DC. At the height of the rally, over 500,000 (US Park Service numbers) protestors were present. AT THAT VERY MOMENT, a CNN info-gal reported live that there were "upwards of 50,000" pro-life demonstrators. Somehow, she misplaced 450,000 people.

[DreamWeaver]

BUMP

[michaelje]

The Czechs cant be too happy about that !

[michaelje]

Is she the one that wears those hideous horned rimmed glasses ?

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Hey I was there too, at the massive Rally for Life on April 28,1990!. I still have the t-shirt from the event. I can assure you that we all knew there were about 500,000 people there, and the phenomenon you just mentioned about minimizing by 90% the number of pro-lifers at that event (and so many other events over the past 28 years) is one of the clearest reasons I give people for not believing the media reports about anything. (I like someone else's reference above to j-urinal-ists, and shall keep it in mind.) There is an evil mindset that has totally pervaded what they want us to think of an an honorable profession, which is in fact a TRADE requiring no particular skill.

[fone]

>>>>>how do you know when someone is lying or just mistaken or actually rightly going against conventional wisdowm?<<<<

I can't recall.

[Skooz]

Thanks for the date correction. I'm usually pretty good with dates, but I AM dangerously approaching middle age.

You may not know that the pro-life rally made the Washington Post front page -- of the METRO section. The "pro-choice" rally of the previous year, which was attended by about 100,000 fewer protestors, made the front page, period. Bias?

[boris]

"Would someone please explain to me why LYING is not a criminal offense?"

Well, because they are not under oath.

- On the other hand, rape is evidently not a criminal offense--when committed by the right fellow.

- Smearing a government employee by releasing confidential personal data is not a criminal offense--as long as it's Linda Tripp you're smearing. Ask Ken Bacon.

- Diverting a thousand FBI files into the White House is not a criminal offense--ask Craig Livingstone or that Clinton lawyer (Kennedy).

- Accepting a $50,000 bribe--er, check--in the White House is not a criminal offense--ask Maggie Williams:

6 March 1997:

"NBC News was the first to report Wednesday evening that Maggie Williams, Hillary's chief of staff, received on March, 9, 1995, a $50,000 check for the DNC from Johnny Chung, the infamous "hustler" who ushered six Chinese government officials on tours of the White House, including a special visit with Bill in the Oval Office. The check in question was received by Maggie the same day as Chung and his pals had a photo taken with Hillary and two days before the Oval Office visit to see Clinton give his weekly radio talk to the nation. (Clinton later expressed concern about photos of this event getting out.) Chung also treated his communist guests to lunch at the White House mess.

"The $50,000 contribution, along with another $316,000 in donations, were recently returned by the DNC to Chung. The DNC seems to believe the money might be laundered. The evidence suggests that Chung may have gotten his money for the DNC from his communist friends in the Chinese government."

- Conducting one's own foreign policy, in a clear and obvious violation of 18 USC 953:

"Sec. 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

...ask Jesse Jackson.

Etc.

--Boris

[MarkWar]

>What exactly does it say when the media is saying don't trust the media? You hit the nail on the head with that bit of common sense reasoning.

Thanks for the kind words! I was going to comment more on this topic, but I just saw the thread about William Cooper being killed and, honestly, I am literally shaking right now. I'm going to sign off for a while and try to think things through.

Mark W.

[RummyChick]

I went to the link in the original post. I nearly spit out my Diet Coke.

Guess who says:"I still box. I don't smoke. I'd like to find a reporter who can outdistance me. I have a 31-inch waist, a 42-inch chest. I'm still real butch" and "I'll kick his head in, then bring it home and bronze it."

[MarkWar]

>Guess who says:"I still box. I don't smoke. I'd like to find a reporter who can outdistance me. I have a 31-inch waist, a 42-inch chest. I'm still real butch" and "I'll kick his head in, then bring it home and bronze it."

Perhaps "Gerry Rivers" is just Ellen Degenerate in a wig and Groucho mustache. I've never seen the two in the same place at the same time. (Although, now that I think of it, wouldn't that be a marriage for the ages? I can see the headlines: TV's Geraldo and TV's Ellen to wed...)

Mark W. Mark W.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Personally I think both of you are a little bit paranoid. This is the expression of one photographer, not acting on behalf of anyone but himself and expressing himself in a way that is open to him. There is not media "conspiracy." It's just that they have beent trained from early on to think a certain way so exaggerating numbers at an anti-American rally comes naturally to them.

When I said that the media is telling us not to trust the media, I see absolutely no evidence that this is a conspiracy to polarize people. It's just a little truth sneaking out between the cracks of the wall the media has built around itself. After all, he's "just" a photographer and won't be taken seriously by many people and his opinion won't be heard by many.

[Sueann]

Yes, and how many times have they done that same thing to FR during our freeps. They say the other side had hundreds and we had a handful - when it was the other way around. I don't have cable, so I don't frustrate myself by watching CNN. Even if I had cable, I would not watch CNN.

[Mr. Mulliner]

We probably see things a lot more the same than my last post let on. I have pondered this question a lot and there have been many times when I've thought it was a conspiracy. In the end, I've concluded that journalism in America is the product of one big group-think where people are naturally taught to see things a certain way through our education system (you won't find many top name reporters who were homeschooled because that system doesn't feed this group-think). Journalism seems to attract certain types of people, just like art, politics, engineering, etc. And part of the profile of journalists, I think, is to be little social activists. Activism invites dishonesty when working towards a greater result.

In this case, this guy is a photographer who is probably very good at what he does (someone on this thread recognized the name and said he's good) and is tired of the guys who write copy because he can see that they are sending out BS reports.

I'm like you, I always watch the news from a distance and take it with a grain of salt. Thank God for Free Republic.