And the naval-gazing analysis (and the excuses) continue on...
To: markomalley
Funny.
The writer isn't blaming OUTRIGHT FRAUD and Muslim hatred for the propaganda. Propaganda pushed BY the editors in questions because it supports the editor's positions and intents.
Instead, he is "sympathetic" to the "plight" of the editor being "hoodwinked."
2 posted on
08/14/2006 7:49:07 AM PDT by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: markomalley
Try hiring people with integrity and the problem is solved.
But to the MSM, the agenda is ALL so they happily hire advocates of particular causes which fit their own evil agenda.
For sure the truth is the last thing on the list when it comes to the MSM.
3 posted on
08/14/2006 7:51:14 AM PDT by
OldFriend
(I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
To: markomalley
Careless digital alterations, like Hajj's, are easier to spot. Even then it was too much for Roto-Reuters...
4 posted on
08/14/2006 7:51:25 AM PDT by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: markomalley
Well, now that that's settled, maybe the media can spend more time staging photos than editing them.(Sarcasm)
5 posted on
08/14/2006 7:52:42 AM PDT by
Solamente
(Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out...)
To: markomalley
7 posted on
08/14/2006 7:53:08 AM PDT by
The G Man
(The NY Times did "great harm to the United States" - President George W. Bush 6/26/06)
To: markomalley
8 posted on
08/14/2006 7:54:03 AM PDT by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: markomalley
Long before it was possible to alter photographs, they were used for propaganda purposes. The idea that photographs do not lie is perhaps one of the biggest lie of all.
To: markomalley
> ... has raised questions ...
Rubbish. This has been festering since Photoshop was first
released.
The National Geographic, for example, has very strict
standards for what/how photogs must submit.
A publisher who was really concerned would require
that the photogs use only digital cameras that
digitally sign and encrypt each image, and tag it
with GPS-provided time-date-coordinates (in addition
to all the other EXIF data), and submit only
camera .RAW.
What the legacy media is really concerned about here
is that they have been caught, and that fictional
images are now no longer an easy way to boost their
agendas. They will not fix the underlying process flaw.
14 posted on
08/14/2006 8:09:41 AM PDT by
Boundless
(Imagine if Fox had a news channel)
To: markomalley
"The Soviets had to have a whole department to doctor pictures,"...
LOL! Where do you think those Soviet fauxtographers went after the
fall of the Soviet Union!?
I've presumed they worked for the MSM...either as retouchers
or "image consultants".
For a great example of the work-product of these Soviets, see:
"The Commissar Vanishes"
by David King
15 posted on
08/14/2006 8:14:39 AM PDT by
VOA
To: markomalley
Ease of digital photo alteration adds a hurdle for news outlets.
18 posted on
08/14/2006 8:23:44 AM PDT by
MrEdd
(More cheep than a flock of baby chickens.)
To: markomalley
Uhhh, how about getting CREDIBLE JOURNALISTS and then you wouldn't have to sift through thousands of photos.
Idiots.
20 posted on
08/14/2006 9:02:50 AM PDT by
sandbar
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
