COMMENTS:
Good thing we have blogs these days, otherwise this probably would have gone by unnoticed.
I wonder how many times in the past they did get away with this sort of thing? Frightening what the 100% unbiased media is capable of.
Voted : No, the media should stick to reporting the facts
It is unacceptably dishonest. No one should copy Gore's deceit.
No, doctoring photos is not acceptable.
Who do they think they are ... Swiftboaters?!? 
You got this from Michelle Malkin?!?
Ha ... should be interesting to see if it is actually true. Malkin is not the epitome of truthfulness.
But, to the ballot question -- No, there is no excuse for doctoring photos.
The horrors over there don't need doctoring.
Cathexis, these photos are all over the net. It doesn't take much looking to find Reuters statement on withdrawing the photos. They also fired the photographer. So, it is true. I can give you a link to it if necessary.
Mr. Hajj had come under suspicion for some earlier photos that looked staged. He also was able to miraculously find a Koran burning in the rubble of one building. Wonder how that happened?
The actual photos show duplicate buildings and duplicate clouds of smoke. That just doesn't happen especially when there are plenty of photos to show that the "duplicate" building never existed. It is one of the worst, most obvious photoshop jobs ever.
Voted : No, the media should stick to reporting the facts
No excuse.
And judging from some of the things that caught my eye in the past, this isn't the first time. And it's not just Reuters doing it.
"Now, since we all learned from Dr. Gore that it is perfectly acceptable to knowingly over-exaggerate the facts on global warming"
Not true, Al Gore never said that, and he never did that. That's just bogus neo-con propaganda.
And since it is obviously wrong to doctor photographs and evidence (unless, of course, you are a neo-con creating false evidence to promote a unilateral invasion of another country), the ballot is clearly just another of Duke's anecdotal tales meant to slander Muslims and win more people over to the noble cause of hating Muslims more and siding with Israel.
FF: I've stated my position on that kind of activity.
I just hope it is a heartfelt move back to integrity, and not more partisan hypocrisy.
Oh you mean like how the United States has done countless times...like right before the invasion of Iraq? Umm, didn't it come out that the Israeli intelligence officials that briefed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and some others had doctored photo "evidence" of Iraq's WMD's?
Come on....it goes on all the time, like it or not.
And please stop reducing all of this into an anti-Jew thing. Its also getting tired. Get a new line, woud ya. :)
Voted : No, the media should stick to reporting the facts
Absolutely not okay to doctor photos.
Cathexis, what you really mean to say about Michelle Malkin is that you don't like her. Actually, she is a very truthful person. Try as you will to attack her reputation, but you fail. You don't like Krauthamer, but, oh yeah, that is for his physical appearance.
This is not another bash muslims ballot. Here are links to the photo:
msnbc. msn. com /id/ 13165165
popphoto. com/ photographynewswire/ 2772 /reuters -pulls- doctored-photo. html
(add 3 w to link above.
It is MAINSTREAM news and about ETHICS in covering the war.
Cath: The swiftboaters never doctored anything, you're thinking of CBS, an example of the far rightwing conservative media inexplicably forging documents to hurt bush immediately before the election.
And the story is true, reuters fired the photographer. Her site was simply the first one I found that had both pictures side by side.
But don't bother looking in to it, just question my source and then pretend it never happened.
And patch, I've got a lurking suspicion that perhaps Adnan Hajj is not entirely neutral in this conflict.
Imagine the outrage if Malachi Leibowitz photoshopped pictures of israel after the numerous rocket attacks to make the devastation look worse. I imagine it would trump this paltry outcry of faux-shock. There might be actual criticism from the left, not simply excuses and I'm sure no one would ask for a source.
Voted : No, the media should stick to reporting the facts
NO. But when have the media portrayed things squarely?
Never, in my opinion.
Here's one example of a doctored photo I'll bet Duke didn't complain about.
Go to ballot #100133
Cath: I notice you never seem to question the sources of ballots that you agree with. In fact you rarely even ask for a source, any will do, if you like what they have to say.
Now I wonder, which motivates you more when you instinctively attack the origin of any article I post; a heartfelt move back to integrity, or partisan hypocrisy?
But feel free to prove me wrong, just go ahead and hold those you agree with politically to the same standard.
Should I start holding my breath now or should I wait?
Note: We are still waiting for herzie's outraged comments on the photo that was doctored by the Republicans.
Surely, he doesn't want people to think he's a hypocrite.
While herzie is formulating his appropriate response, take a look at another photo doctored by the Republicans in ballot #100168
cranky- "And since it is obviously wrong to doctor photographs and evidence (unless, of course, you are a neo-con creating false evidence to promote a unilateral invasion of another country), the ballot is clearly just another of Duke's anecdotal tales meant to slander Muslims and win more people over to the noble cause of hating Muslims more and siding with Israel."
- Irrational to start bringing up 'hating Muslims' out of nowhere.
Voted : No, the media should stick to reporting the facts
We seem to be living in an age of doctoring... photos, policies, elections..., let's just stick to the facts please...
|
