Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    While no one wants any trusted journalist doctoring photos, I fail to see any important impact of these two examples.
    You fail to see the importance of a photographer adding missles into his pictures using a computer program? Has the world gone mad?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    While no one wants any trusted journalist doctoring photos, I fail to see any important impact of these two examples.
    If it was doctored to show less destruction by Israel planes, by removing a lot of the smoke, or if there was picture of 3 bombs striking a civilian area and doctored to only show one, would you be more concerned?

    EDIT: Is it within your acceptable journalistic ethics to magnify / alter the news that is obviously slanted by creating events that did not happen the way they did to help create a beneficial image leaning towards a potential personal bias?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/07/2006 at 03:30 PM.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    You fail to see the importance of a photographer adding missles into his pictures using a computer program? Has the world gone mad?
    You miss my point. I stated no trusted journalist should doctor photos. That is a complete violation of their role.

    That said, I fail to see what impact the supposed two examples have.
  4. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You miss my point. I stated no trusted journalist should doctor photos. That is a complete violation of their role.

    That said, I fail to see what impact the supposed two examples have.
    I guess I see what your saying, but where does it stop? What other photos has this man doctored? He is basically making up news as he goes along and passes it off as real? If this continues, how can we open up a newspaper and believe what we see or read (kind of like reading the ny times).
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    I guess I see what your saying, but where does it stop? What other photos has this man doctored? He is basically making up news as he goes along and passes it off as real? If this continues, how can we open up a newspaper and believe what we see or read (kind of like reading the ny times).
    Agree with you 100% and that journalist and any like him (ie Fox 'News') should be black-balled.

    My question is, why did he/she do the altering of the two images. Doesn't seem to benifit either side to any extent.
  6. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Agree with you 100% and that journalist and any like him (ie Fox 'News') should be black-balled.

    My question is, why did he/she do the altering of the two images. Doesn't seem to benifit either side to any extent.
    The photographs of Qana that this man took appear to maybe be non-legite now too. Can you see how this might benefit one side?

    When did fox news alter photographs? I mentioned the ny times because of their Jayson Blair fiasco. I could never really understand the debate over Fox and Cnn. Obviously people are going to feel that opinions they dont agree with are biased to the other side. I guess it matters who you ask, but it is telling that the ratings show alot more people watch fox.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    The photographs of Qana that this man took appear to maybe be non-legite now too. Can you see how this might benefit one side?
    What appears to be made up in those photos?

    but it is telling that the ratings show alot more people watch fox.
    I would like to see a source on this. It looks interesting, and I think it is true about Fox having the most viewers.
    Last edited by NRG; 08/07/2006 at 05:42 PM.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Agree with you 100% and that journalist and any like him (ie Fox 'News') should be black-balled.

    My question is, why did he/she do the altering of the two images. Doesn't seem to benifit either side to any extent.
    I think the argument that the second photo has no real effect is weak. If in fact the Israeli jet was firing flares (not sure why? to mark a target or used to prevent a heat seeking SAM from hitting him?) and not 3 rockets, then it may give the impression that Israel is using more force than necessary (and Im not making the argument that they are or they arent.)

    Obviously there must have been some motivation for the photo to be doctored...otherwise why take the time? I have a feeling he (the photographer) wanted to embellish the story (hence the made up quote of text that the fighter was firing rockets instead of a simple flare.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    The photographs of Qana that this man took appear to maybe be non-legite now too. Can you see how this might benefit one side?

    When did fox news alter photographs? I mentioned the ny times because of their Jayson Blair fiasco. I could never really understand the debate over Fox and Cnn. Obviously people are going to feel that opinions they dont agree with are biased to the other side. I guess it matters who you ask, but it is telling that the ratings show alot more people watch fox.
    Dude, Fox has been so bad recently it's getting funny. Saturday they were on a concerted effort to show the "hidden trauma of shell shock" in Israel which I'm not dismissing, but the story was really over the top.

    Then Sunday Fox "news"caster was lamenting that other news organizations were not covering the Israeli casulties, for example the attack on Haifa. But was quickly and accurately slapped down as a gues pointed out CNN reported that story BEFORE fox"news".
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think the argument that the second photo has no real effect is weak. If in fact the Israeli jet was firing flares (not sure why? to mark a target or used to prevent a heat seeking SAM from hitting him?) and not 3 rockets, then it may give the impression that Israel is using more force than necessary (and Im not making the argument that they are or they arent.)

    Obviously there must have been some motivation for the photo to be doctored...otherwise why take the time? I have a feeling he (the photographer) wanted to embellish the story (hence the made up quote of text that the fighter was firing rockets instead of a simple flare.)
    That Israel is using more force than necessary is already a commonly accepted truth. So I can't see how the Jet photo makes a crap diff. BUT this should not be accepted from a journalist any more than Fox pundit channel should be allowed to call itself News.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That Israel is using more force than necessary is already a commonly accepted truth. So I can't see how the Jet photo makes a crap diff. BUT this should not be accepted from a journalist any more than Fox pundit channel should be allowed to call itself News.
    A little biased are we?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That Israel is using more force than necessary is already a commonly accepted truth. So I can't see how the Jet photo makes a crap diff. BUT this should not be accepted from a journalist any more than Fox pundit channel should be allowed to call itself News.
    Just to throw it out there...maybe its a commonly accepted truth because of blatant lies and exaggerations such as the photo demonstrate? (I actually don't believe this but the argument is that when we continue to perpetuate something as the truth when its exaggerated...it tends to become the truth. Therefore, we shouldnt tolerate it at all.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Just to throw it out there...maybe its a commonly accepted truth because of blatant lies and exaggerations such as the photo demonstrate? (I actually don't believe this but the argument is that when we continue to perpetuate something as the truth when its exaggerated...it tends to become the truth. Therefore, we shouldnt tolerate it at all.)
    Fair enough.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That Israel is using more force than necessary is already a commonly accepted truth. So I can't see how the Jet photo makes a crap diff. BUT this should not be accepted from a journalist any more than Fox pundit channel should be allowed to call itself News.
    Even without the doctored pictures, this "commonly accepted" truth (oxymoron) is dubious. What is the formula for the amount of force required?
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Even without the doctored pictures, this "commonly accepted" truth (oxymoron) is dubious. What is the formula for the amount of force required?
    ((force / millions of dollars in technologically advanced military killing hardware) * number of one's own civillian casulties ) - (attitude of 'how can we be the Oppressor? We're the victim.')
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    ((force / millions of dollars in technologically advanced military killing hardware) * number of one's own civillian casulties ) - (attitude of 'how can we be the Oppressor? We're the victim.')
    So, based on your calculations, what is the appropriate level of response?

    This feels like an episode of Star Trek ("set phasers to 'stun'")
  17. #57  
    For the record, from my vantage point, Isreal clearly is not using sufficient force, seeing how the aggression continues. My formula?

    Sufficient Force is defined as the least amount of effort that results in either cessation of aggression by OR elimination of the bully.

    F(Enough) = Min {F(S.O.S.), F(D.O.A.)}
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    For the record, from my vantage point, Isreal clearly is not using sufficient force, seeing how the aggression continues. My formula?

    Sufficient Force is defined as the least amount of effort that results in either cessation of aggression by OR elimination of the bully.

    F(Enough) = Min {F(S.O.S.), F(D.O.A.)}
    I think I would phrase that as Israel is not using efficient force. But their goal is not their stated but rather to kill as many Hezbollah as they can before International pressure is applied to discourage them. And they're really not caring if they have to destroy Lebannon in the process.
  19. #59  
    Since sufficient force can only be judged after accomplsihing the goal it is usually impossible to calibrate. Better to apply a bonus multiplier and achieve DOA for the other side rather than play French chef at a stove cooking a sauce and twiddle with the temperature, thus risking DOA status for self.
  20. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I think I would phrase that as Israel is not using efficient force. But their goal is not their stated but rather to kill as many Hezbollah as they can before International pressure is applied to discourage them. And they're really not caring if they have to destroy Lebannon in the process.
    Hezbollahs goal is to kill as many Israelis as possible, so I fail to see your point.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions