Looks like Glenn Beck is right on Inflation

Post Reply New Topic

Surely you can't be serious. Faux News has rightfully earned their Faux status. Here's a recent bit from Stephen Colbert exposing Papa Bear O'Reilly who showed footage from the Wisconsin protests - complete with palm trees in the background.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/stephen-colbert-on-fox-news-fake-footage/

It's crap all around people. The only trusted news source is the actual source.

Edit: And, of course, Stephen Colbert.

Actually they did show some of them, Fox News and some blog sites went after them then blasting them for using doctored photos.



Compression doesn't do that, it's the paintbrush and cloning tool from a program known as photoshop...

So, no problem with the palm trees in Wisconsin?

You're kidding right? This is the stupidest post I've ever read from you.

It's obviously not image compression, and even a person with the most basic knowledge on image editing programs would know that. Not only did Adnan Hajj himself (and a couple others at AP) admit to darkening the clouds and using the cloning tool to duplicate the clouds, but it's also really obvious. If it was image compression then the picture overall would've looked the same but more blocky/blurry. But no, the picture looked the same except a specific aspect of the picture (the clouds) was altered.

Whether or not the left wing media showed pics of civilian victims is irrelevant, cuz we weren't referring to photos of civilian victims in the first place . What they did show however, was the doctored photo of the 2006 Lebanon bombing. Reuters published it which is why it became a controversy in the first place. Where did Inuyasha say anything about civilian victims? He specifically referred to the photo of the 2006 Lebanon bombing being doctored to smear Israel.

Oh, and this isn't an isolated incident. Reuters has a pattern of being disingenuous:
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

@number5: Looks like that palm tree thing was taken outta context:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/no-fox-news- ... est-video/
Disappointing. I thought you actually had some dirt on Fox News, but turns out it's just another case of the context being thrown outta the window. And btw I don't even watch Fox News or like it that much since it's just another entertainment channel so I have no reason to take sides for its own sake.

Well, that should talk wonders about my other posts.

Well, the thing is not really that I think image compression caused it is that don't really get what the big deal with these two pictures, because to me both the original pic and the other show basically the same thing. In one there is more smoke, and I cannot imagine the benefit of adding more smoke than the pictures really had. I mean, explain to me what exactly is this? A mass conspiracy from the left wing media to show that the Lebanon bombings had a lot more smoke than they did?

I also don't get why you would take this so emotionally, as if you had some sort of vested interest in protecting Israel's HR image even though it is wrecked to pieces regardless of the 2006 pictures' veracity and you are not from there anyway. (Nothing doctored about the more recent events)

You've earned it.
If you didn't think image compression caused it then explain why you worded it this way:
It doesn't even look REMOTELY like image compression. And I don't know why they did it either since it is hilariously stupid. Not only is this sensationalist, it is also photo fraud. They could've just stuck to sensationalism, it would've been more convincing that way. But no, they went past that and took sensationalism to a new level.

Tell me, what part of my post looked like an emotional knee jerk reaction? I thought my post out pretty carefully and brought facts to the table. That isn't very emotionally satisfying so that kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

You're right though, I'm just an emotional wreck defending Israel for its own sake. Never mind that I'm allergic to BS in general and will call out any type of smearing no matter who or what it involves. But if it helps you sleep at night to make inaccurate assumptions about the role of emotion in my posts, then so be it.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 09 Apr 2011, 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't get what the big deal is either. The altered photo would be no more damning than the original, even if one couldn't notice the duplications... what was the point of altering it? Smoke over buildings, indeed.

It's dishonesty and fraud, plain and simple. Typical sensationalism which mostly consists of misrepresentation is one thing, but tampering with photos loses you huge points in credibility.

And what's up with people making such a big deal outta palm trees, yet they think nothing of a photo being tampered? To add insult to injury, Fox News didn't actually lie about that and it's just another case of the context being thrown outta the window.

...tampered in a way that did not change the content of the original. Perhaps darker smoke for more sensationalism, but no change whatsoever in the content or meaning of the photo.

If all the thesis spilled are true then yes, it is dishonesty, but what is the point of this dishonesty? what is at stake that needed more smoke in the images? The non-doctored image has the same content as the 'doctored' one.


I don't get it either, but to echo your words it would be "dishonesty and fraud".

And that's why they shouldn't have tampered with it. It's as dishonest as paraphrasing someone when you've been asked for a direct quote.

Oh and I just remembered this:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... -too-many/
Is this not a big deal either?

The point of it was sensationalism, but I dunno why they thought it was smart to go beyond misrepresentation and into fraud. The photoshopping looked like it was done by a 10 year old.

Or more like "taking em outta context". I've proven that they didn't lie, so how about addressing that instead of making a failed attempt at being witty?

So a vast leftist media cabal conspired to orchestrate a deliberate and malicious fraud which, if successful, would not even have served any hypothetical purpose they may have, and which was so incredibly transparent that they don't even seem to have made any effort at hiding it?

Look, Ace, that narrative doesn't make any kind of sense, but it is what you are putting forward.

palm trees in wisconsin? Big deal to me if I knew the weather there was so nice I would have moved there.
the implied the tape was at the protest and it was not how is that not a lie?

Show me where I mentioned anything about a conspiracy or it's BS. Is there a conspiracy? I dunno but what there is, is more evidence of disingenuity from the mainstream left wing media than Fox News. Reuters is responsible for the doctored photo, when did I ever hold all left wing media responsible for that?

@ JakobVigil: I've already proven it's not a lie so I'm just gonna quote myself:
btw, this source has a balanced outlook on this. While they point out that Bill O'Reilly slanted it, he certainly didn't lie about it. This is an example of editorialism, not dishonesty.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I get it.

I slant, you are biased, they are dirty liars and propagandists.
I will take everyone here at face value and say.
You only see neferious intentions in your opponents.
maybe there are less evil plans and more honest mistakes and lazy editing.

No you don't get it at all and I doubt you even read my posts since I acknowledged that though Bill O'Reilly slanted it he didn't lie about it. My issue is with dishonesty not editorialism. Fox News to my knowledge hasn't doctored photos by darkening smoke clouds and cloning em (2006 Lebanon bombing) or adding a missile (Iran 2008, I've posted a link in my 2nd last post).

And prove that I've excused anything from a right wing source as an honest mistake or lazy editing or it is nothing but a BS strawman.

I don't have "opponents" since I don't exclusively assume malicious intentions on one side. Politics isn't an us and them thing to me. So take your assumptions and shove em back up where they belong.