Looks like Glenn Beck is right on Inflation

Post Reply New Topic

"Jacques Steinberg and Steven Reddicliffe photo-gate " please fox is dirty as hell on this issue.
so just modifying the faces of journalists not adding nonsenseical clouds. (what a grand plot).
strawman? please sorry you got your panties in a bunch but what I said was not stating your view incorrectly a ploy.
I just think the people only see the evil done by the other side and I do read your post you do have a side.

Editing war footage is a lot more disingenuous than editing someone's portrait outta silliness. This is childish but it's not dishonest. It would be dishonest if say they put a picture of a gun in one of their hands which lead to em getting arrested or w/e.

And can you phrase the ploy thing better? Cuz I don't understand what you're saying. If you're gonna make assumptions back em up. Otherwise you are full of s**t. You can call it having my panties in a bunch, but I'm not gonna leave assumptions like that unchallenged so if you don't like it then that's too bad. Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for you to prove those assumptions you've made.

Fox News is as sensationalist as every other media outlet and of course their s**t stinks too but I haven't seen any proof that they're as dirty as say MSNBC.

yeah its different when you do it.
don't cry, it's not a strawman its ad hominem
I am accusing you of being human and thus biased.
sorry "as a ploy" typo -honest mistake not an evil plot
what are my assumptions pray tell?
that you are biased?
well do you have a pulse?
if you do I will use that as my primary evidence.
I got my baises too but you won't find me defending a propaganda network.
MSNBC = party democrat bias != left bias
CNN = establishment bias != left bias
FOX = Rupert Murdocks personal bias != american conservative bias (but informs it)

all are dirty

so to reiterate, it is different when you do it.

That's irrelevant cuz you haven't shown me anything that is the equivalent of the examples I posted. I defend or call out whoever. And it is a straw man to accuse me of dismissing whatever comes outta my supposed side as lazy editing or honest mistakes when I haven't done any of those. I am still waiting for you to prove this. Going once... going twice... and if I have to go for the third time then you are full of s**t. Agreed? Last time I checked challenging someone to prove a statement true isn't crying.

If Fox News did doctor photos to advance their agenda then I would give em s**t for it just like anyone else. But no I haven't seen em do that yet.

there was a explict agenda on the steinberg radcliffe pictures they were used in a piece that attempted to discredit them for questioning fox. What was the agenda of cloning smoke?
Just calm down little buddy. I belive you its different when your guys do it.
its hard to see the mountian when you live on it.

Ok I don't see how childishly altering their photos advances anything politically. They just don't like em so they made em look uglier. They aren't using photo doctoring to put a spin on an event.

And the smoke cloning was done to sensationalize it and make it look worse than it actually was. And once again what Fox did isn't the equivalent of cloning smoke or adding another missile to a picture. And who are these "you guys" I am supposedly a part of? What did I unknowingly sign up for? I'm not even a conservative. Oh yeah, and I remember the left wing media was saying the Tea Party shouted n****r and spat on a legislator, but they couldn't prove it. Fox News is slanted and sensationalist, but I haven't seen em doing anything like that. They are slanted, sensationalist, and obviously not "Fair and Balanced", but they haven't resorted to outright lies or photo doctoring to spin an event afaik.

If they do, then I will give em s**t for it just like I would for any other media. Why don't you go look in the mirror and see who really has double standards? You're saying "There's no agenda behind cloning and darkening smoke to advance an anti-war or anti-Israel agenda, but there's political gain in making opponents look uglier". If you still can't look in the mirror and see a person with double standards, then maybe you need to spray some Windex on it.

Oh, and you still haven't proven that I have rationalized anything as lazy editing or an honest mistake so it's official: You are full of s**t.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 09 Apr 2011, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

you are angry so I win
just kidding
the piece was about the two mens piece about fox.
their pictures were altered so that they would look silly.
that is the definition of an agenda.
I can not fathom how you think that makes me full of it.
I myself can not see the agenda that cloud cloning promotes but maybe that is because of my biases.
so take a chill pill,
Proven is such a stupid word to use in an conversation.
Prove to me I am wrong ba ba ba argggh.
it makes you look foolish.
of course I can't "prove" anything to you that you don't want proven.
the stakes are so high with your emotional argument to "prove" myself not full of feces.
<shudder>
I had a higher opionion of you now you sound like inyusha.
I see it as a case of selective bias you see it differently.

In other words... UMADBRO? You haven't brought anything to the table as to why making people look uglier is equivalent to duplicating and darkening smoke or adding a missile to a picture to advance an anti-war agenda. I don't know how making a reporter look uglier is supposed to destroy his career. All you've brought to the table are ad hominems and straw men which have yet to be proven.

And yeah if you make baseless assumptions I will ask you to prove em. It actually makes you look foolish when you can't prove a specific statement I asked you to. Cool, so you don't like the word "proven", I don't like semantics and it's pointless for me to use another word that means the same thing. And yes you can prove that I rationalized anything supposedly coming from my side as an honest mistake or lazy editing, all you have to do is quote me. It's not my loss dude, so the stakes are on you.

"prove" like a math proof the goal is to get you to belive something?
and you are the judge?
wow - how will I know if I have won?
do you "win" conversations?
do I get a prize?
to me they don't look uglier they look more stereotypicaly jewish. <see how my bias and sensitivity come in?>
to me the jewing up of pictures two critics of fox news is political to you it is funny.
to you adding extra smoke is a high crime to me I see it as stupid and inscrutable.
this is because of bias not because one of us is full of it.

They're not equivalent, but it should go to show you that there is dishonesty afoot. Why not just leave the photos alone? Why edit them at all? That should be the question that is being answered, not this pointless debate between you two gentlemen

I think there is some 'honest' photo editing, cropping, color correction, changes for compisition etc. some of these end up distorting the truth by accident. for instance you ask me for a picture of my dog and the only one a have his foot looks weird so I crop it to just show his face and you don't see that he is a sheltie and so you think I have a collie.
I see the cloud as this. The extra missle and the "Jewing up" of two jewish journalists is unexcusable.
it is lying.
the plausable deniablity, gag is also annoying, so it looks like there video refers to the voice
but only if you were not paying close attention.
or the "I am not saying you are a moron but . . . you are a moron" gag.
then when you say hey you called me a moron they can say no I did not rewind the tape.
It is the journalist equivelent of playing quit hitting yourself.
oh what this is a Beck thread. the stuff Glenn does its annoying.
-to me -to me I only speak for me.

Prove as in, quote a post from me that shows that I've rationalized anything as lazy editing or honest mistake. That's not a hard concept to grasp but anyways it's gone unanswered long enough so I'm not gonna keep asking you. I've already asked three times so I doubt it's gonna go anywhere.

And once again your are misrepresenting me, I called the photo editing of the reporters childish and last time I checked that isn't synonymous with funny to grown adults. It's ridiculously petty to edit someone's photo to make em look uglier just cuz you have an axe to grind with em. They also superimposed one of their photos on a poodle so what agenda is supposed to be advanced here other than a ridiculous way of getting back at em? Ok I get the bigger nose but what do yellow teeth, dark eyes, or a big chin has to do with looking Jewish? Also the other guy hasn't been PSed with a bigger nose. He has just been PSed with an alien forehead a ridiculously high hairline and I don't think either of those things are stereotypically Jewish.

Cropping is one thing, but it's another thing to doctor a photo. It's like the difference between a sound bite and an impersonation.

@ Vigilans: Live and let live? I'm not about that. But I've said all that I had to say so I think I'm pretty much done with this thread unless anything new comes up.

You know, if there was a picture with a photoshopped missile that was a better choice to focus the debate on than the extra smoke one.

My god, is that for real?

It reminds me of this:

Rhetorical Question: Why do I get the feeling that Fox News never actually editted those pictures, but mediamatters concocted these images to create a story from thin air?

Answer: Because this would be just like something mediamatters would do.

Hell Yeah! And the pics with the doctored smoke. Fox News made them to make it look like reuters edits pics.

You're being ridiculous dude, they aired it themselves. Fox News is entertainment just like anything else, so of course they're gonna have bad journalism. What I credit them for however, is that their s**t stinks less than the left wing media.