TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Lamestream Media in the 21st Century
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lamestream Media in the 21st Century

post #1 of 16
6/9/10 at 9:55am
Thread Starter 
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06...est=latestnews

Quote:
The British-based Reuters news agency has been stung for the second time by charges that it edited politically sensitive photos in a way that casts Israel in a bad light. But this time Reuters claims it wasn’t at fault.

In one photo, an Israeli commando is shown lying on the deck of the ship, surrounded by activists. The uncut photo released by IHH shows the hand of an unidentified activist holding a knife. But in the Reuters photo, the hand is visible but the knife has been edited out.

In a second photo the unedited print issued by IHH showed blood along the ship's railing and a hand holding a knife as an Israeli soldier lies on the deck. Both the blood and the knife were missing in the photo that Reuters released.
This is not the first time this has happened with Reuters.
Back in 2006 they doctored pictures to show Israel in a negative light.

If it wasn't for Fox News (the pariah of the left) reporting this goodness knows the rest of them wouldn't.
Reply
post #2 of 16
6/9/10 at 10:05am
There will still be those that scoff at anything Fox News does. We have a friend who never even watches Fox because he does not have cable. He totally dismisses anything they do. Says they make it up.

There is no way to discuss anything with the libs. They just deny, deny, deny. So don't be surprised when they do that with this.
Reply
post #3 of 16
6/9/10 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06...est=latestnews



This is not the first time this has happened with Reuters.
Back in 2006 they doctored pictures to show Israel in a negative light.

If it wasn't for Fox News (the pariah of the left) reporting this goodness knows the rest of them wouldn't.
Well, give them some credit. At least their photos are from the correct event, not like Fox News has done several times, using photos from entirely different events to make things look more "favorable".
Reply
post #4 of 16
6/9/10 at 10:22am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, give them some credit. At least their photos are from the correct event, not like Fox News has done several times, using photos from entirely different events to make things look more "favorable".
I think you are talking about crowd size at an event.

That wasn't right either Skippy but I think that pales in comparison to this, especially considering the 2006 incident, also photo shopped to make Israel look bad.
Reply
post #5 of 16
6/9/10 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think you are talking about crowd size at an event.

That wasn't right either Skippy but I think that pales in comparison to this, especially considering the 2006 incident, also photo shopped to make Israel look bad.
Oh, I don't know. Fox didn't correct theirs until they were actually caught at it. In this case, no one knew that Reuters had a cropped photo, until they replaced it themselves with the correct one. Perhaps both were intentional, perhaps both were accidents. I see no reason to chastise any one network any more than any other that's done the same thing.

Edit: Oops, didn't know there were 2 photos in question. Reuters corrected one on their own, but apparently haven't commented on the 2nd. They'll probably do a Fox and blame some poor slob in editing.
Reply
post #6 of 16
6/9/10 at 10:52am
Hey!!! Why are faces blurred out in those photos? Why aren't we demanding completely unedited photos?
Reply
post #7 of 16
6/9/10 at 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
There is no way to discuss anything with the libs. They just deny, deny, deny.
Really, all libs?
Reply
post #8 of 16
6/9/10 at 11:00am
Anyone seen this about the story done by two reporters about Monsanto? And how FOX wanted the reporters to present information that they felt was false?

Quote:
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/...rm_public.html

Quote:
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

Quote:
It began when Fox fired the reporters in 1997, after they tried to air a story about the bovine growth hormone, rBGH. The report exposed its widespread use by US. dairy farmers, despite studies linking rGBH consumption to prostate and breast cancer. Monsanto, the producer of rBGH, threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of significant, verifiable information from the story. Eventually, WTVT caved, despite Wilson and Akre's efforts to rewrite the story more than 70 times to redress the complaints.
...
More appalling than the reversal were the five major media outlets that filed briefs of amici curiae in support of Fox's position. Their statement said, "The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was presented with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Br...e_FoxNews.html

tsk tsk, pot meet kettle, kettle, pot.
Reply
post #9 of 16
6/9/10 at 12:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Anyone seen this about the story done by two reporters about Monsanto? And how FOX wanted the reporters to present information that they felt was false?


http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/...rm_public.html


http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Br...e_FoxNews.html

tsk tsk, pot meet kettle, kettle, pot.
Well, then I guess that makes it quite allright what Reuters did in this situation and also back in 2006. Thank you for your answer.
Reply
post #10 of 16
6/9/10 at 12:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Oh, I don't know. Fox didn't correct theirs until they were actually caught at it. In this case, no one knew that Reuters had a cropped photo, until they replaced it themselves with the correct one. Perhaps both were intentional, perhaps both were accidents. I see no reason to chastise any one network any more than any other that's done the same thing.

Edit: Oops, didn't know there were 2 photos in question. Reuters corrected one on their own, but apparently haven't commented on the 2nd. They'll probably do a Fox and blame some poor slob in editing.
I thought this was caught by a blogger, I could be wrong.
Reply
post #11 of 16
6/9/10 at 12:28pm
It's making me even more cynical than I was. Lying with the printed word is one thing, but photoshopping images is even worse I think.
Reply
post #12 of 16
6/9/10 at 12:34pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html


Quote:
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
What is wrong with using "statements from Monsanto"?
News Stations use statements from people all the time that end up being false.

And they were found to be right in a Court of Law in these three, identical, articles you posted about the same issue.
Reply
post #13 of 16
6/9/10 at 12:44pm
Nothing is wrong with using statements you know to be false, that happens all the time, usually with a comment from the journalist that they consider it false. But look at the part after what you underlined, though about FOX insisting on other revisions that conflicted with facts, also that Monsanto wanted certain things removed. Making an error is one thing but what gets me is the stance that because there is no law against knowingly broadcasting "news" which is false, you can invoke the first amendment to do so. If ALL networks are using that stance then nothing any of them broadcast is worth viewing or listening to IMO.
Reply
post #14 of 16
6/9/10 at 2:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Nothing is wrong with using statements you know to be false, that happens all the time, usually with a comment from the journalist that they consider it false. But look at the part after what you underlined, though about FOX insisting on other revisions that conflicted with facts, also that Monsanto wanted certain things removed. Making an error is one thing but what gets me is the stance that because there is no law against knowingly broadcasting "news" which is false, you can invoke the first amendment to do so. If ALL networks are using that stance then nothing any of them broadcast is worth viewing or listening to IMO.
I agree with what you are saying, especially the last sentence.

What I am wondering is, if this part:
Quote:
there is no law against knowingly broadcasting "news" which is false, you can invoke the first amendment to do so.
is a direct quote of the court ruling.

Also, they are being a bit obscure about the "revisions" that they wanted the journalists to make. Those "revisions" could be a big deal but they may be nothing. The court must not have thought it was a big deal but that doesn't always mean anything.
Reply
post #15 of 16
6/9/10 at 3:57pm
No those are my words. I've been looking for reliable information on the court case but can't find anything. I"m not too sure about this source but they do provide what appear to be quotes taken from wiki, so take it with a few grains of salt.

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit

But thinking about your OP, I think it's more serious if Reuters has doctored pictures than if FOX does. For my money, Reuters and AP are fairly neutral so i try to get my news from them. I KNOW that MSNBC, FOX and most of the major networks are biased and in some cases sloppy so I automatically filter out the spin when I read an article from them. If Reuters and AP however release photoshopped images and then one of the networks with an axe to grind gets hold of it and uses it in a story, it's spin on top of misinformation.
Reply
post #16 of 16
6/9/10 at 8:35pm
Thread Starter 
That website name cracks me up 2dogmom.

It's almost as bad as, pajamasmedia, huh?

Really it sucks that any news media is so biased and phony pictures just aren't right.

I just don't understand why some people hate Israel so much, it's depressing.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Lamestream Media in the 21st Century