I agree with your last comment, but the bad apples aren't in a position of power? Just the power to persuade the general public of a bunch of lies...no biggie.

8/7/2006 4:28:28 PM

If there was a systematic problem with editors, then your point would be valid.

8/7/2006 4:30:24 PM

if there were a systemic problem with the administration, then the point that bush/rumsfeld were guilty of war-crimes because of abu graib would be valid.

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 4:34 PM. Reason : s]

8/7/2006 4:33:41 PM

Ever notice you have to introduce the photographer's, and more broadly the media's liberal nature as a given in order for any of the connections you make in these "gotcha's" to make logical sense?

Let me be clear about this: This entire thread's premise is based on a logical fallacy. It's called Affirming the Consequent (read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent), and it takes the following form:

Given: If P, then Q.
1) Q.
2) Therefore, P.

In TGD's and every other paranoid-delusional vast left-wing media conspiracy theorist's arguments, that translates to this basic form:

Given: If the media is vastly controlled by the liberals (p), then there would be agents within it trying to harm conservatives or conservative ideas (q).

1) OMF RATHERGATE!!1/REUTERSGATE!!1 (q)

2) OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST CONSERVATIVES!!1 (p)

Or in the news right now:

1)The photographer's alterations supported the Arab cause/hurt the Israeli cause (q)

2) The photographer, Reuters, and the rest of the media must be liberal. (p)

I challenge TGD, Excoriator, bgmims, or any of the other apologists in this thread to logically outline the connection between this photographer's actions and his presumedly liberal, rather than strictly pro-Hezbollah politics.

The statistics on liberals in the media on this matter are irrelevant. Statistics on people with pro-Hezbollah views who are also of liberal persuasion are pretty much the only thing that could bail you out, and I highly doubt you'll find any such thing on Google.

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ...]

8/7/2006 9:10:26 PM

Quote :

"1) OMF RATHERGATE!!1/REUTERSGATE!!1 (q)"

both Rathergate and Ruetersgate actually happened.

so...in sticking with P's and Q's...Q actually exists...whether or not it leads to P...i dont now...but Q actually exists

8/7/2006 11:20:17 PM

Ok, fine, I'll grant that he's a terrorist sympathizer and a manipulative journalist that worked for Reuters. Maybe he's a conservative, maybe he's a liberal, who knows. But the fact that he got a job there is what bothers me. Go on and say "they fired him" but that is a ludicrous argument in this case because you know damned well its a fallacy to say

They fired a guy who lied...therefore they fire all guys who lie...therefore we can trust the news unless there's a retraction! Hooray!

I don't care about the liberal agenda of this guy, what I care about is that people are basing their opinions of this war on faulty journalism. That includes both liberals and conservatives. When the media presents a photo of an Israeli jet apparantly dropping bombs indiscriminately over a city, one might draw a conclusion totally different from the picture actually being an Israeli jet dropping defensive flares.

So, if you want me to face up to the challenge of actually proving the guy is a liberal, I cannot, but I can tell you that the more disturbing aspect is that American liberals will/have parroted this same false report in order to diminish support for Israel. If people don't support Israel, I have no problem with that, so long as the information they got on it wasn't a blatent lie by someone else who hated Israel.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 8:07 AM. Reason : ed]

8/8/2006 8:07:33 AM

^^whoops....my bad...P actually exists...not necesarily Q

8/8/2006 8:55:20 AM

I think you actually got it the first time.

You know that the photographer/editor fucked with the pictures (q), but have little to go on but inference as far as his intentions or his participating in any vast liberal conspiracy (p). Q happens, but may not have been the result of P, it may have been the result of X, Y, and/or Z; for instance: he could be a Hezbollah agent for all I know, in which case I doubt he'd think anymore highly of liberal Americans than conservative Americans. We're probably all Zionists to him.

Quote :

"bgmims: But the fact that he got a job there is what bothers me."

It bothers me, too. But how could you prevent this from happening? Reuters must hire thousands of photographers every year, and are subject to some kind of unfair hiring practices legislation. I wonder if "Are you now or have you ever been a member of any terrorist organization?" is a legal question to ask on a job app.

8/8/2006 9:59:33 AM

To smcrawff, FUCK THE WORLD PRESS! Most of them are radicals and liberal elites from socialist countries. And, the last time I checked, the United States of America is a sovereign country--WE establish OUR foriegn policies, not the Europeans. Yes, it is advantageous for America to operate in a multilateral fashion when possible, but such agreement and cooperation is not always possible.

To A Tanzarian: "Maybe you didn't get the memo. Imperialist George Bush is the only threat to our hemisphere. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are just trying to formulate a peaceful end to the Palestine situation." Yeah, by financing Hezbollah--what a fucking joke! A top Hezbollah terrorist--who was involved in the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers--was captured recently, and he admitted that Iran is funding Hezbollah.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/6/102805.shtml?s=br

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/20/122749.shtml

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/html/pdf/Iran-Testimony-2-16-05.pdf

To Johnny Swank: The GOP is not a news organization and GOP operatives are not journalists--false analogy.

To Gamecat: "totally unproven liberal agenda"? Please read the article in the following link in which is discussed the 89 percent of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs who voted for Bill Clinton. You will note that the link is to PBS, which is hardly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/bias_10-28.html

To PinkandBlack: Please stop posting the fucking word "CONSPIRACY," which often implies secret agreements! What is happening with today's media is right out in the open--it is groupthink. Instead of going out and digging up the facts, which is often dangerous, time-consuming, expensive, and doesn't fit the agenda, many of these so-called journalists confer with one another to confirm their take on a given story. This approach creates a self-perpetuating insular reality for those who participate in it--it is left to us, the viewers and readers, to sort fact from bullshit.

To bgmims: Consider the following maxim: One doesn't have to be a cow to recognize milk.

8/9/2006 3:05:46 AM

CBS is owned by GE. think weapon systems. the CEO of GE is a huge Republican supporter and contributor to GWB's campaigns. on election night 2000 he went to the newscaster and demanded they call call the election for Bush, indirectly subverting the electoral process and pushing the decision into the US Supreme Court.





[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 3:30 AM. Reason : ]

8/9/2006 3:22:15 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: Please read the article in the following link in which is discussed the 89 percent of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs who voted for Bill Clinton."

Quote :

"Gamecat: The statistics on liberals in the media on this matter are irrelevant. Statistics on people with pro-Hezbollah views who are also of liberal persuasion are pretty much the only thing that could bail you out, and I highly doubt you'll find any such thing on Google."

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 8:16 AM. Reason : ...]

8/9/2006 8:16:10 AM

Quote :

" I challenge TGD, Excoriator, bgmims, or any of the other apologists in this thread to logically outline the connection between this photographer's actions and his presumedly liberal, rather than strictly pro-Hezbollah politics. "

I've not been apologisting for anything in this thread - merely pointing out the ease with which liberals flip-flop between the "few bad apples" argument, depending on how it suits their partisan ideology

8/9/2006 9:52:37 AM

And how many times have we stated that the two scenarios are not comperable?

8/9/2006 10:18:58 AM

probably about as many times as you opened your mouth and quacked like a duck

o< o<

8/9/2006 11:10:28 AM

And you gave a counter-argument where?

o< o< o< ( o)<

8/9/2006 11:12:48 AM

there was no argument from your side to counter - just a bunch of hysterical attempts to distract from the point

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 11:28 AM. Reason : s]

8/9/2006 11:28:10 AM

yeah boonedocks' strategy is to say whatever he can to convince himself that you or anyone else that he doesnt agree with is wrong so therefore he can feel more confident about what he himself believes to be true

8/9/2006 11:33:11 AM

My counter argument is that the abu-graib stuff was sytematic.

The president and attorney general have redefined the meaning of torture to include things that were previously prohibited. We do not allow third-party unscheduled inspections of the facilities. We allow CIA interrogations to occur without supervision. We Place hucklebuck national guard units in prisons without proper training. Then we only take action when it's going to leak to the media.

On your side of the arguement, there's no evidence on administrative complacency.


ALSO, OMG YOU'RE AWFULLY QUICK TO JUMP ON THE "IT'S SYSTEMATIC, NOT A FEW BAD APPLES" ARGUMENT, DEPENDING ON HOW IT SUITS YOUR PARTISAN IDEOLOGY.

8/9/2006 11:39:03 AM

I do think that Rumsfeld is guilty of or at least culpable for war crimes.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 1:47 PM. Reason : s]

8/9/2006 1:43:32 PM

Quote :

"ALSO, OMG YOU'RE AWFULLY QUICK TO JUMP ON THE "IT'S SYSTEMATIC, NOT A FEW BAD APPLES" ARGUMENT, DEPENDING ON HOW IT SUITS YOUR PARTISAN IDEOLOGY."

[/thread]

I mean, is this really supposed to come down to an ontological debate about how many bad apples constitute a systematically rotten tree?

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ...]

8/9/2006 1:58:08 PM

poor libs and their mainstream media, rofl x 3...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288406,00.html

Quote :

"AP Beirut photo faces questions Woman appears 'mourning destruction of her home' in two photographs allegedly taken two weeks apart in different locations; foreign media remains largely hostile to Israel Yaakov Lappin A woman has made two appearances in photographs used by the Associated Press and Reuters, allegedly wailing over the destruction of her Beirut home. US bloggers have however noticed that photographs were taken two weeks apart from each other, according to times stamps on the images, and that the photographs were taken in different locations. "Either this woman is the unluckiest multiple home owner in Beirut, or something isn't quite right," noted the author of the Drinking From Home blog. In the first photograph , taken by Reuters, a woman is seen in front of a bombed out building in Beirut. "A Lebanese woman wails after looking at the wreckage of her apartment, in a building, that was demolished by the Israeli attacks in southern Beirut," Reuters said in its caption. The photo was dated July 22 2006. A second photograph of a woman who looks exactly like the woman in the first Reuters image, even bearing the same scar on her left cheek, is then supplied by the Associated Press. "A Lebanese woman reacts at the destruction after she came to inspect her house in the suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon," the Associated Press caption claimed. The date accompanying the photograph is August 5 2006, and the scenes behind the woman are different to those of the July 22 photo. After receiving "some emails" about the photos, the BBC removed the Associated Press image from its own website. The Associated Press has so far not responded to requests by Ynetnews for an explanation of the mysterious time gap. Meanwhile, sections of the foreign media are continuing to display uneven coverage of Israeli and Lebanese casualties of war and scenes of destruction. A BBC photo display entitled "In pictures: Conflict impact," made up of eight images, uses six out of eight pictures to illustrate damages in Lebanon , but pays scant attention to the human toll and large-scale damage sustained in northern Israel . The photographs show images of Lebanese civilians and bombed out buildings and Beirut, and carry captions such as: "A woman in Beirut cries amid the destruction." After the BBC says fighting is hampering aid deliveries in southern Lebanon, an image of an Israeli soldier praying is shown, covering his ears while an IDF canon goes off in the background. "But ground clashes in the area continue unabated," the BBC wrote, suggesting through the image that the Israel bore most of the responsible for clashes. There are no photographs of Hizbullah rockets, or Hizbullah members firing rockets at Israel in the series. Only the seventh photograph in the succession shows an image of an Israeli woman mourning at a funeral, with the caption "Israelis are also counting their losses." The last picture in the series is of an Israeli in an air raid shelter, but the person in the photo is made black by shadows, and appears to be a silhouette of a human figure. The person's age, sex, or any human features are impossible to make out – an odd choice by the BBC considering the large number of available photographs of Israeli children and families in bomb shelters. The BBC's website photo editor, Phil Commes, has also taken a neutral line on the faked photographs from Beirut supplied by Reuters , saying: "One man's color balancing is another man's grounds for dismissal." In addition, a caption provided by the AFP under a photo of rockets in Lebanon read: "Rockets fired from Israel are seen falling in the outskirts of the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre." However, the USS Neverdock blog has spotted a contradiction, with Reuters writing under a photograph which appears to be identical: "Hizbullah missiles streak the sky as they are launched towards Israel from south Lebanon." After analyzing the contradiction, the blog says: "Notice also the credit for the two pictures goes to two different photographers but they look like the exact same photo to me. One just has the buildings in the foreground cropped out. Was that done to disguise the fact that they are the same photo?" Several blogs have been busy finding many more clues to forged and staged photographs, many of them taken by disgraced photographer Adnan Hajj. In particular, reports and images claiming that the IDF struck an ambulance are being challenged as false . And in yet another suspicious case , two Reuters photographs of a Lebanese man holding a picture of Hassan Nasrallah has been challenged by the Jawa Report blog. The same man is seen holding Nasrallah 's picture and saluting with glee, but the background for each photo of the man is dramatically different. While in one image a clear, blue sky can be seen, a second image of the man flashing a victory sign shows a dusty background, suggesting a bomb had recently been dropped in the area. Two buildings also mysteriously disappear the second photo, although both photographs seem to have been taken from the same location. "Does this represent a dramatic change in the local architecture and air quality between the two shots, or was this yet another Lebanese stringer Photoshop project?" asks the blog's author, before concluding: "Only the photographer knows for sure." (08.08.06, 22:22)"

 

8/9/2006 2:12:48 PM

you're a goddam moron if you think "anti-israel" and "liberal" are synonymous.

8/9/2006 2:15:30 PM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: you're a goddam moron if you think "anti-israel" and "liberal" are synonymous."

From a practicality standpoint it doesn't really matter, as long as the left-wing media continues eroding it's already tenuous credibility for the sake of being anti-Israel  

8/9/2006 2:16:45 PM

now youre just trolling. youre rehashing the same arguments you've never once proven conclusively.

8/9/2006 2:20:41 PM

Quote :

"TGD: poor libs and their mainstream media, rofl x 3..."

Quote :

"Gamecat: is this really supposed to come down to an ontological debate about how many bad apples constitute a systematically rotten tree?"

Quote :

"TGD: From a practicality standpoint it doesn't really matter, as long as the left-wing media continues eroding it's already tenuous credibility for the sake of being anti-Israel"

For an outsider, you sure do seem to know a lot about how this left-wing media operates. But when I really think about it, none of what you've said here makes any sense. Practically every term you've used here is undefined.

Could you please enlighten the rest of us about (1) what outlets constitute this left-wing media, (2) how this media, as an entity, erodes its credibility in pursuit of an anti-Israeli agenda, and (3) how these same actions logically indicate that the left-wing media has an anti-Israeli agenda.

Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind about a nondescript boogeyman whose unestablished conflict with Israel erodes its own credibility in ways that are left entirely to our imagination.

8/9/2006 2:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Practically every term you've used here is undefined."

Surely you jest...

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: (1) what outlets constitute this left-wing media"

Let's start with Reuters, then tack on the AP. This is, after all, conventional wisdom -- phrases like "left-wing media" didn't become household vernacular by accident.

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: (2) how this media, as an entity, erodes its credibility in pursuit of an anti-Israeli agenda"

When you photoshop documents, stage pictures, and otherwise present items as authentic when in fact they are not (see: Jayson Blair and New York Times, Dan Rather and CBS, Adnan Hajj and Reuters, the list goes on), you erode credibility in the trustworthiness of your publication -- trustworthiness being, I'd assume, the main thing the left-wing media wants to cultivate so they're not relegated to National Enquirer status.

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: (3) how these same actions logically indicate that the left-wing media has an anti-Israeli agenda"

Hypothetical syllogism. The left-wing media (p) -> routinely forged documents presented as accurate, in this case anti-Israeli photographs now from more than one source (and that's skipping over the routinely slanted news reporting) (q) -> anti-Israeli agenda (s). Ergo, p -> s.

Add Modus Ponens: p -> q, p, therefore q.

Ergo, p ^ (p -> s) => s. QED. 

8/9/2006 3:01:03 PM

nazis are like total fascists

8/9/2006 3:03:37 PM

Quote :

"Let's start with Reuters, then tack on the AP. This is, after all, conventional wisdom -- phrases like "left-wing media" didn't become household vernacular by accident."

lol, so do I dare ask what outlets you consider to be non-biased?

Quote :

"(q) -> anti-Israeli agenda (s)"

8/9/2006 3:15:27 PM

all photographes hired by reuters must pledge allegiance to the doctrine of liberal america.

8/9/2006 3:17:55 PM

All soldiers enlisted must pledge allegiance to the doctrine of indiscriminate torture and murder of innocent civilians.

8/9/2006 3:21:12 PM

Hey Ex, could you comment on my thoughts regarding that argument you keep using?

8/9/2006 3:23:02 PM

some soldiers may torture, but that does not mean its the norm. i agree with this.

however, some photographers might do sketchy things. this means that most are liberal. at least thats what this thread is saying, essentially.

8/9/2006 3:26:31 PM

Another possible photo fake....this time in the New York Times


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22017_Down_the_Rabbit_Hole

8/9/2006 3:28:35 PM

editors don't hold any blame for a "few bad apple" photographers

administration does hold blame for a few bad apple prison guards.



HMMMMM...........

8/9/2006 3:29:08 PM

are you trying to tell me there are double standards in politics????

8/9/2006 3:29:41 PM

^^Yes.

You see, there's this stuff called "evidence."

This "evidence" can support certain arguments, while not supporting other, similar arguements.

In this case, the "evidence" supports the argument that what is happening in the military is a matter of leadership. It also supports the argument that what is happening in the media in not a matter of leadership.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 3:31:07 PM

Quote :

" You see, there's this stuff called "evidence." This "evidence" can support certain arguments, while not supporting other, similar arguements. In this case, the "evidence" supports the argument that what is happening in the military is a matter of leadership. It also supports the argument that what is happening in the media in not a matter of leadership."

I think that sums up the liberal mindset pretty well. MILITARY BAD MEDIA GOOD OOGA OOGA

8/9/2006 3:37:58 PM

Yeah, the critical thinking thing is totally a liberal mindset.

damned liberals.


There's strong evidence the torture thing had support in the administration.

There's no evidence the photoshopping had support from editors.

But lets ignore that and post some crap about liberals.

8/9/2006 3:41:36 PM

Then how come the pictures are only being taken down after bloggers are finding the errors in the pictures? Don't the papers have photo editors????


I mean the one with the fake smoke was pretty blatant

8/9/2006 3:43:44 PM

Quote :

"TGD: Let's start with Reuters, then tack on the AP. This is, after all, conventional wisdom -- phrases like "left-wing media" didn't become household vernacular by accident."

You're right, they were cultivated and dissseminated by political organizations. Far from an accident.

Coincidentally, the phrase conventional wisdom is often used to describe statements that are frequently repeated, regardless of whether or not they're true. A great example would be the conventional wisdom in 1960, even among doctors, that smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful to your health.

Surely you jest...

Quote :

"TGD: When you photoshop documents, stage pictures, and otherwise present items as authentic when in fact they are not (see: Jayson Blair and New York Times, Dan Rather and CBS, Adnan Hajj and Reuters, the list goes on), you erode credibility in the trustworthiness of your publication"

Maybe I wasn't clear, or perhaps you've jumped neck-deep in media conspiracy zealotry so I just don't see the connections, but what actions committed by liberals on this list were committed in pursuit of an anti-Israeli agenda?

Because from what I can tell (1) Jayson Blair acted alone and there are only scant connections between his articles and Israel, (2) the Thornburgh-Boccardi Report is pretty unflinching about CBS: "The Panel does not find a basis to acuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias.", and (3) Adnan Hajj's liberal credentials are 100% assumed.

Quote :

"TGD: Hypothetical syllogism."

Hypothetical syllogisms can do no more than hypothetically answer questions.

8/9/2006 3:44:41 PM

Quote :

"There's strong evidence the torture thing had support in the administration"

where

8/9/2006 3:46:52 PM

Quote :

"There's no evidence the photoshopping had support from editors."

there's just as much evidence supporting this theory as there is supporting the theory that Rumsfeld authorized the actions in Abu Graib

8/9/2006 3:48:23 PM

Quote :

"where"

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. ''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.""

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Quote :

"US seeks to shield its war interrogators: report Aug 9, 2006 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel would not face prosecution for humiliating or degrading wartime prisoners under amendments to a war crimes law drafted by the Bush administration, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The amendments are part of the administration's three-pronged response to a June 29 Supreme Court ruling that struck down as illegal and a violation of the Geneva Conventions the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners, the Post said. The court's ruling gave prisoners captured in Afghanistan protections under the Geneva Conventions, which the administration previously maintained did not apply to them. Citing unidentified U.S. officials, the newspaper said the administration plans to amend the 1996 War Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to violate the Geneva Conventions, by narrowing the number of potential criminal prosecutions. "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2290275

Just two recent examples

Quote :

"there's just as much evidence supporting this theory as there is supporting the theory that Rumsfeld authorized the actions in Abu Graib"

No, there isn't.

Both cases have apples doing bad things. In one case, the leadership is redefining torture and creating scenarios which are highly conducive to torture. The the other, the leadership is taking strong action to stop the bad apples.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 3:59:17 PM

you gonna post something that has "strong evidence that the administration supported the torture thing"

cause you sure havent posted it yet

8/9/2006 4:02:28 PM

Yeah, it's right up there.


Where's your strong evidence that the photoshopping is systematic?

8/9/2006 4:05:51 PM

i didnt claim there was

seriously though why dont you boldface the strong evidence about how the administration supported the torture thing? probably because you dont have any strong evidence

8/9/2006 4:06:33 PM

Needs more pictures of doctored photos.

8/10/2006 7:27:22 PM

the claims that there is no liberal media bias is laughable. the liberal control of the media and academia are widely chronicled. here's a few things related to young people out there from one of my favorite sites to check out:

anatomy of a front-page photograph: http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

PW crashes the today show, today show calls saddam trial "a show" :
http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/NYC/operation_bias_check.php

liberal control of academia? some dont want you to know:
http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=12 -original ad criticizing liberal policies and their racist nature.
http://www.protestwarrior.com/misc/wrfl_editor_list.php -rejection and acceptance

8/13/2006 2:30:02 PM

look ThaBigL, other people can troll with silly pictures too!!

8/13/2006 3:10:57 PM

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

set 'em up... 

8/13/2006 8:06:00 PM