PDA

View Full Version : Media fraud from Lebanon



stone_cold
17 Aug 06,, 06:27
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp :rolleyes:

Tronic
17 Aug 06,, 06:34
yea... saw some stuff on this on tv...

Dreadnought
17 Aug 06,, 14:41
Amazing how they could expect to pass that off...Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel to make Israel look bad. They should have just continued carpet bombing. :rolleyes:

Tronic
18 Aug 06,, 07:38
lol... how about this for propaganda...

http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/30/images/top6.jpg



:rolleyes: :biggrin:

idiots... just make themselves look stupid...

stone_cold
18 Aug 06,, 08:39
Terrorists try to win sympathy rather than winning the actual war.

sappersgt
19 Aug 06,, 23:54
This is why I never believe any caption and and suspicous of all photos...

The day after a terrorist bombing in Nelspruit my picture appeared in the Star, Browning HP in one hand with a 10 year bloodied little blond girl in the crook of my left arm, determinedly looking off into the distance. I was very martial (dashing too I must say ;) ) looking with my Sergeants stripes prominently displayed. Captioned " Sargent O, an American serving in the South African Army holds Mrvw. So and so after rescuing her from terrorists". It looked like a WWII German "Volk und Vaterland" poster!

Couple of problems with this picture. First, I was still a Corporal! I had been "frocked", that is given a post dated promotion not effective for another 38 days. My uniform blouse had caught on fire when the police car I was hiding behind was hit by a RPG. The blouse in the picture was borrowed from the Sargent commanding the reaction force.

Second, I had never even seen my pistol. My CO had taken it from me as he was unarmed. I fought the engagement first with an Uzi taken from the guard as we rushed through the main gate and then (when I ran out of ammo) an AK-47 I picked up (along with a nifty nickel .357).

Third, the blood on the little girl wasn't hers, it was a combination the terr's and her seat mates (they were on a school bus) who was cut by flying glass.
For all that it was still a great picture, just what was needed in a war of "hearts and minds". I finally got to wear my Sergeants stripes although the bastards still didn't give me the pay increase. I also didn't get to keep the pistol which really pissed me off. They said they needed it for "intelligence". Yeah right. :rolleyes:

gunnut
22 Aug 06,, 01:48
Terrorists try to win sympathy rather than winning the actual war.

That's a brilliant strategy. Avoiding our strengths while maximizing our weakness. Too bad the idiotic left wing loonies are all too eager to get on their knees and smile like a donut for the islamonazis.

Gun Grape
22 Aug 06,, 03:27
Terrorists try to win sympathy rather than winning the actual war.


Not just them. Everyone does it.

Some of it is blatant, like the smoke clouds and the "dead" man pulled from rubble.

Others like the same woman used on different days, can be chalked up to lazy journalism. Photographer takes a couple of photos from different aspects. When someone says they want a certain type of pic, he has a few to sell. No need to bust hump to find another just use something off an old roll.

The wedding dress does make the shot a little more personnal. That could be the difference in winning a pulitzer. Kind of like the pic of the hole in the pentagon that showed charred broken offices but a clean American flag still in its stand in one of them.

Does anyone remember the picture of the first flag raising on Iwo Jima? No it was dull. The one that we do remember is dramatic. and has become the most reproduced photo ever. Dull photos dont sell.
On a sad note, the man who took that famous pic died today. May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows your dead Mr Rosenthal. Rest in Peace

stone_cold
22 Aug 06,, 23:02
That's a brilliant strategy. Avoiding our strengths while maximizing our weakness. Too bad the idiotic left wing loonies are all too eager to get on their knees and smile like a donut for the islamonazis.

True, some idiots cant help their apologetic nature, they always side with the underdog to sound all noble and stuff.

stone_cold
22 Aug 06,, 23:24
Not just them. Everyone does it.

Some of it is blatant, like the smoke clouds and the "dead" man pulled from rubble.

Others like the same woman used on different days, can be chalked up to lazy journalism. Photographer takes a couple of photos from different aspects. When someone says they want a certain type of pic, he has a few to sell. No need to bust hump to find another just use something off an old roll.

The wedding dress does make the shot a little more personnal. That could be the difference in winning a pulitzer. Kind of like the pic of the hole in the pentagon that showed charred broken offices but a clean American flag still in its stand in one of them.

Does anyone remember the picture of the first flag raising on Iwo Jima? No it was dull. The one that we do remember is dramatic. and has become the most reproduced photo ever. Dull photos dont sell.
On a sad note, the man who took that famous pic died today. May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows your dead Mr Rosenthal. Rest in Peace

IMO there is sharp disntinction between sensationalizing your news report and using sympathy tactics to deliberately misled your viewers.

gunnut
29 Aug 06,, 22:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lM57WpO-ww

This is kinda on topic...

SnowLeopard
30 Aug 06,, 00:13
I always get a kick out of when they put a ship or aircraft picture in to support their story and it's the wrong item being talked about.

After 9-11, a magazine in the check out aisle talked about America's military. It showed an army scene on the cover, an air force one, a marine one, and a navy one. Only the ship they showed with a 47 on its hull was not USN but a Lupo class from some other navy. I suppose they told someone to get a picture of a CG47 class and they took any picture that looked close that had a 47 on it.

In the 80's, I was looking at a foreign magazine and they were saying, as best as I can translate, of how this was a picture of the Kitty Hawk on the way with the Med. Couldn't be, probably was a Viet Nam era shot because it had A-1 Skyraiders on the deck.

It's especially bad when the newpaper is suppose to be more or less official. I have a front page article from the Navy Times where it shows a picture of the USS Seawolf on its way decommissioning. I keep it in my Jane's Fighting Ships from years earlier that shows the exact same picture.
------------------------------------------------------------
("A lot of alliteration from anxious anchors placed in powerful posts!"--TV newsman Aaron Altman looking at the tv, (w,stte), "Broadcast News")

gunnut
30 Aug 06,, 06:53
We had another thread talking about how incompetant some of these news services are. I suppose journalists aren't military experts nor are they expected to be. But there should be at least a pseudo military analyst on staff to check up on their military reports.

However, intentionally distorting a report based on your personal emotions is blatantly unethical. In other professions, people go to jail for that.