Can Free Thinker still maintain that the Media has a conservative slant?

(Only if he has his head in the sand)


http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

thats an interesting video... that smoke was definitely fake.. and those people WERE actors posing....

LOL nothing like a photo shoot to try to get sympathy for uncle hez

Free Thinker will be glad to give Uncle Hez a great deal of sympathy. He doesn't even need doctored pictures.


thats an interesting video... that smoke was definitely fake.. and those people WERE actors posing....

LOL nothing like a photo shoot to try to get sympathy for uncle hez

http://www.aish.com/
Aish HaTorah has become one of the world's largest organizations dedicated to answering the vital question, "Why be Jewish?".

Got to wonder about the credibility of the site?

thats an interesting video...

I agree. Much like the movie *Big Fish* was "interesting".

that smoke was definitely fake..

No, actually, that is entirely false. It is even admitted by the spinmasters who did the video that the smoke was real.

The smoke indeed was Photoshopped to seem more voluminous than it was--for whatever reason. But the difference between it being x amount of real smoke and x amount of exaggerated smoke is --in my mind-- FAR less significant that the people making the video seem to believe.

and those people WERE actors posing....

Unfortunately for you, you have no proof whatsoever that that was the case.

Free Thinker will be glad to give Uncle Hez a great deal of sympathy.

I have no sympathy for Hezbollah.

Unlike you, however, i DO have an immense amount of sympathy for the innocent Lebanese civilians (around 1000 have been murdered so far) that Israel is relentlessly bombing and slaughtering as they try to run to safety.

If they weren't actors posing that woman is a real estate mogul since she had two apartments complexes destroyed by the Israelis. The guy in the green ball cap gets around too, first helping dig out survivors and then becoming one of the dead. Two damned unlucky people, I say.

If they weren't actors posing that woman is a real estate mogul since she had two apartments complexes destroyed by the Israelis.

a) Ok. Maybe --as you allege-- she is a real estate mogul. (although it seems unlikely to me)

But that does not prove she is *an actor*.

b) I am still not quite sure what point they're trying to raise with the two different pictures with her in them. Does someone have proof that her home was not destroyed by the innumerable bombs Israel is dropping?

The guy in the green ball cap gets around too, first helping dig out survivors and then becoming one of the dead.

IF there is only one young male in all of Lebanon who wears a green cap, the video might have a valid point.

But I think it is entirely possible that there is more than one young male in Lebanon who possessed a green cap. And the video does nothing to prove that the person seen helping with rescue efforts is the same person seen lying in the other photo.

And even IF it was the same person....why is it impossible that that person was helping with rescue efforts in one picture, but was hurt (later) in the subsequent picture?

Maybe he WAS posed there and was faking......but the video does NOT show one iota of proof that that is the case.

I just cannot understand how the video makers can categorically state that the man in the second picture --who seems to be lying there hurt-- is not actually injured.

????

I am not defending the pictures or denying that what the video says could possibly be true.......but where is the evidence that what they're alleging is true?? They present none.

Simply claiming --Hey!...look!...see, here's this guy with a green cap on acting like he's helping with the rescue effort, and then here later is a guy with a green cap pretending to be hurt!! It HAS to be the same person, because...because.....well!, just look at that danged GREEN CAP!!!-- is no form of proof whatsoever.

That's the right-wing, pro-Israel media for ya'.
The original reports of 54 dead at Qana quietly became 28.
And the Jenin "massacre" several years ago turned out to be a very big story with very small retractions.

I don't know what this pro-Israel media is up to, but you think they'd err on the side of Israel once-in-a-while, wouldn't you?

No, actually, that is entirely false. It is even admitted by the spinmasters who did the video that the smoke was real.
Then how are they "spinmasters"? It seems to me that the real spinning was done by the noble and nonpartisan journalists in Beirut.
The smoke indeed was Photoshopped to seem more voluminous than it was--for whatever reason.
What do you mean "for whatever reason"??? You know exactly why the journalist did that, and don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.
But the difference between it being x amount of real smoke and x amount of exaggerated smoke is --in my mind-- FAR less significant that the people making the video seem to believe.
Up to a certain point, I agree.
Unfortunately for you, you have no proof whatsoever that that was the case.
It would certainly seem we do for the latter of the two supposed "actors" in this video. The argument over the existence of the "real estate mogul", which consequently, you think is "just unlikely", brought about some compelling questions, but pay no attention to that, for we've got some Israelis to fry, right..? :rolleyes:

a) Ok. Maybe --as you allege-- she is a real estate mogul. (although it seems unlikely to me)
....I am still not quite sure what point they're trying to raise with the two different pictures with her in them. According to the media, this woman lost a home on two different days. The real estate mogul line was a joke (either the media is lying or she owns two different homes).

The thing to consider in a story like this is that this fake was obvious. There are others not being detected.

According to the media, this woman lost a home on two different days. The real estate mogul line was a joke (either the media is lying or she owns two different homes).

I still fail to understand what the criticism is of the two photos of the woman in black.

It seems to me that the second photo, and accompanying text, is NOT making any claim whatsoever, or even trying to imply, that ---"This woman lost her home on the exact same date as we are showing you this photo".

The producers of this video seem (I think) to be trying to make the case that the second photo and text somehow contradicts the first one. I cannot follow their reasoning on it.

The second photo/text makes no claim as to the specific day she lost the home, and the two pictures seemed to have been taken from different angles, but i see no proof whatsoever that the building in the background is a different building than in the first one.

Lastly, even IF every small nuance (i.e., the actual date of the destruction of the building, the way the building appears in the photo) that the producers of that video are trying to criticize WERE true......even if the second photo DID place a different date on the destruction of the building, even if the second photo WAS (although there is no evidence to that effect) a different building, what an incredibly tiny distinction it would be that the second photo was somehow in conflict with the info on the first photo. WHAT possible 'evil' connotation --in the minds of the producers of that video-- as to what is taking place over there is the second photo giving any person ?!?!?

Surely the producers of that video ARE aware that buildings ARE being destroyed there, aren't they?

Surely the producers of that video ARE aware that women ARE in the streets crying over their homes being destroyed, aren't they?


I just fail to understand the criticism.

Lastly, even IF every small nuance that the producers of that video are trying to criticize WERE true......what an incredibly tiny distinctionNews, almost by definition, informs us in real time, or at least day to day (especially in the age of competing 24 hour news networks). To show this powerful image of this woman with two different dates is misleading.
The distinction may be small, but if it were a heroic US Marine photo shown twice you'd be all over it.

To show this powerful image of this woman with two different dates is misleading. The distinction may be small, but if it were a heroic US Marine photo shown twice you'd be all over it.
Exactly.

The distinction may be small, but if it were a heroic US Marine photo shown twice you'd be all over it.

There have been innumerable instances of the Corporate owned US mainstream Media flat out FABRICATING stories about what is taking place in the Middle East, (not simply showing pictures of a crying woman that some infantile hack somewhere has conflated in his mind to be a "lie" about her home being destroyed since the photos were posted on different dates), and I have not **been all over them**.

Every instance of the "lies" purportedly being demonstrated by the photos that the video showed were insignifant little nothings, especially when compared to something like the COMPLETELY STATED AND PHONY news fantasy of the toppling of the Hussein statue at the beginning of the war, and I was not "all over it**.

"A guy with a green hat is working in one picture, but he's "pretending" to be injured in another picture!!!"..........what patented idiocy.

The video provides ZERO proof that --

a) the pictures were of the same person

b) the person in the second photo was not actually injured

To try and compare four or five insubstantial and meaningless photos (that were never even conclusively PROVEN to be a purposeful attempt to mislead anyone) to the misleading, Corporate-run, pro-war propaganda campaign of DISinformation that the "embedded" mainstream Media have been carrying out since the war began is like comparing a jaywalker to a goddamned mass murderer.

To try and compare four or five insubstantial and meaningless photos (that were never even conclusively PROVEN to be a purposeful attempt to mislead anyone) to the misleading, Corporate-run, pro-war propaganda campaign of DISinformation that the "embedded" mainstream Media have been carrying out since the war began is like comparing a jaywalker to a goddamned mass murderer.
That's all anything is to you: a comparison between the (in your mind) "misleading, Corporate-run, pro-war" Bush government and everything else. You have such loathing for our current political leadership that you'd ignore the truth just to score an anti-"reichwing" point. You know who else employs such tactics: political hacks.

By the way, we're not in court. We're not "proving" purposeful intent on the side of the journalists to mislead the public. The fact of the matter is they did, and that's all there is to it. If you need proof of anything, then you're not as "freethinking" as I originally thought. Ask yourself what the intent was behind DOCTORING THOSE PHOTOS, and get back to me. I mean, seriously, what could placing a teddy bear in a smoldering building possibly mean? C'mon, FT, I'm curious...

Or, perhaps, it was the evil work of the notorious "spinmasters" again!?!? :rolleyes:

your right, u cant prove his identity.. BUT he looks like the same person, is wearing the same clothes, has the same hat, and it looks like the same area and same time of day. Of course YOU will deny it until the day u die.. but u need MUCH LESS evidence to convict other people of things, that i AM sure of.

AND the one lady WAS the same person. She had the scars and such on her face... so since they did it once.. why wouldnt they do it again? You've used that reasoning with your past conspiracy theories.. i would think this would be RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY...

BUT.. its not anti bush.. i forgot.

...especially when compared to something like the COMPLETELY STATED AND PHONY news fantasy of the toppling of the Hussein statue at the beginning of the war, and I was not "all over it**.

If you want to say the toppling statue was a government plan and not the spontaneous act of a crowd, that's your right. But it actually did happen and the media didn't doctor photos or make the statue look taller or meaner or claim that there were four statues or put Bratz Dolls in the picture.

If memory serves me, this thread is about the doctoring of photos. You can't show any pattern of a reich wing equivalent to what we're talking about here.

That's all anything is to you: a comparison between the (in your mind) "misleading, Corporate-run, pro-war" Bush government and everything else.
But this thread is in many ways jut that sort of comparison.

I just cannot grasp what the criticism is --by the people who made the video-- of the two pictures of the woman wearing black.

You have such loathing for our current political leadership that you'd ignore the truth just to score an anti-"reichwing" point.

No, that isn't true.

I look at the reportage entirely objectively. If the Corporate run Media present a salient, believable version of what is happening, I am more than happy to examine the story on its own merits.

You know who else employs such tactics: political hacks.

I would agree that there ARE **hacks** trying to spin the coverage.

But there are FAR more *political hacks* falsifying stories from the Middle East in favor of the uber-Conservative leadership in the USA than there are who are (supposedly) trying to spin things to the other viewpoint.



If you need proof of anything, then you're not as "freethinking" as I originally thought.

You make the mistake of confusing *freethinking* with simply believing -- with no questions asked-- whatever the Corporate Media presents as ""the truth"" of what is happening in Iraq.

It is painfully obvious to any person with a >2 digit IQ that the "embedded" mainstream Media who are allowed ANY view of the conflcit [read:the Corporate toadies] are there to present ONE SIDE, and one side ONLY, of the conflict in Iraq.


Ask yourself what the intent was behind DOCTORING THOSE PHOTOS, and get back to me. I mean, seriously, what could placing a teddy bear in a smoldering building possibly mean? C'mon, FT, I'm curious...

There was ZERO proof submitted that the teddy bear (OR the Mickey Mouse figure) was *posed* in that position.


Or, perhaps, it was the evil work of the notorious "spinmasters" again!?!?

Yes.

I would say that like everything associated with the information the gullible American Public receieves about the "war" effort, it was the work of the pro-Rightwing, pro-war, pro-Corporate, pro-Capitalist spinmasters who deliver the bullshit "reportage" of what is occuring over there.

Free, you keep talking about reich wing coverage,as if it's a given, but don't show any examples as salient as this video.

Adnan Hajj is the photographer who took many of the pictures that have been discovered to have been doctored. He not only increased the amount of smoke, he darkened the smoke and cloned buildings in the photo. The Photoshop job was so clumbsy Reuters should have discovered it. Reuters should also have seen that the other photos were obvious fakes.

It makes one wonder, at least it makes me wonder whether Reuters didn't bother looking at the photos taken by a Moslem photographer in a war zone because the photos reinforced a preconceived notion held by the powers that be at Reuters.

Free, you keep talking about reich wing coverage,as if it's a given, but don't show any examples as salient as this video.

thats because he CANT prove it... his conspiracy theory that CNN, NBC, and all that liberal slanted media are actually OWNED by "rightwing corporations" is just that... a very questionable conspiracy theory...

i thought they were owned by shareholders.. but hey i guess that's not juicy enough for FT, he NEEDS there to be some conflict.. and if there isnt any, he'll MAKE IT.

thats because he CANT prove it... his conspiracy theory that CNN, NBC, and all that liberal slanted media are actually OWNED by "rightwing corporations" is just that... a very questionable conspiracy theory....
Not really, Decka. It has an element of truth to it, thus negating your "conspiracy theory" claim, but I am inclined to agree with you; I think FT, amongst a few others here, make a far bigger deal out of it than they should. Anyone who can't see the news as having left leaning slant is either in denial, or they don't watch the news.
i thought they were owned by shareholders.
True, but who are the largest shareholders? Who sits on the board of directors? Who makes their programming choices? These (and correct me if I'm wrong here, FT) are the questions that he's interested in having answered.

... his conspiracy theory that CNN, NBC, and all that liberal slanted media are actually OWNED by "rightwing corporations" is... a very questionable conspiracy theory

There is no "theory" involved.

CNN is owned by Time Warner/AOL, which holds major interests in Wal-Mart and Bell Atlantic, along with significant interests in Gateway, Hughes Electronics (one of the top earners in the defense industry) and SBC Communications. It would be hard to find a MORE conservative minded corporation.

But there IS at least one that is even further to the Right than Time Warner/AOL --------- and that is General Electric.

And guess which media outlet General Electric corporation owns......?

America's very own State-operated (to all intents and purposes) network: NBC

General Electric is one of the world’s techno companies, producing everything from light bulbs to nuclear equipment.

General Electric is also one of the biggest defense contractors ever, and has its finger in many pies, including Enron. Enron's senior advisor to the chairman and member of the corporation’s finance committee is John LA. Urquhart, who also happens to be the Senior Vice-President of Industrial and Power Systems for GE.

NBC has consistently had one of the most rightwing nightly news programs you could tune into this side of the iron curtain. A few years back, NBC --exhibiting an utter lack of ethics and honesty-- intentionally tried to turn the light of scrutiny away from Enron and assign blame elsewhere.

i thought they were owned by shareholders.. but hey i guess that's not juicy enough for FT, he NEEDS there to be some conflict.. and if there isnt any, he'll MAKE IT.

Are you THAT ignorant, that you cannot understand that the mainstream Media in the US is in the hands of EXTREMELY conservative corporations...??

_________________________________

"liberal Media" my fucking ass.

There is no "theory" involved.

CNN is owned by Time Warner/AOL, which holds major interests in Wal-Mart and Bell Atlantic, along with significant interests in Gateway, Hughes Electronics (one of the top earners in the defense industry) and SBC Communications. It would be hard to find a MORE conservative minded corporation.

you SAY it is "hard to find a more conservative minded corporation".. but there is no proof. Just because CNN is owned by Time Warner.. can you prove Time Warner tells CNN what to do? Can u prove that Time Warner is a bunch of Bush backers? And does it really matter that Walmart and Bell Atlantic are in this? These are just corporations... i mean, have u intercepted instructions given by them to CNN?

But there IS at least one that is even further to the Right than Time Warner/AOL --------- and that is General Electric.

And guess which media outlet General Electric corporation owns......?

America's very own State-operated (to all intents and purposes) network: NBC

So GE owns NBC... can u prove GE tells NBC what to report and how to report it?

General Electric is one of the world’s techno companies, producing everything from light bulbs to nuclear equipment.

thats nice

General Electric is also one of the biggest defense contractors ever, and has its finger in many pies, including Enron. Enron's senior advisor to the chairman and member of the corporation’s finance committee is John LA. Urquhart, who also happens to be the Senior Vice-President of Industrial and Power Systems for GE.

I bet GE DID have its fingers in Enron.. but so did many other people. like Republican and Democrat senators. But that doesnt prove a thing as far as GE controlling NBC's information and footage.

NBC has consistently had one of the most rightwing nightly news programs you could tune into this side of the iron curtain. A few years back, NBC --exhibiting an utter lack of ethics and honesty-- intentionally tried to turn the light of scrutiny away from Enron and assign blame elsewhere.

Again... u just say it, no proof. NBC is a liberal news network, so says the UNBIASED ucla study, AND so says most people who ARENT socialist wanna be's.....


Are you THAT ignorant, that you cannot understand that the mainstream Media in the US is in the hands of EXTREMELY conservative corporations...??

well, i have to ask.. if all of these media outlets are so "controlled" by "extremely conservative corporations".. (which u havn't proved), then why do they report so blatantly liberal news?

Again... u just say it, no proof. NBC is a liberal news network, so says the UNBIASED ucla study, AND so says most people who ARENT socialist wanna be's.....Take your 'UNBIASED ucla study' and cram it so far up your ass it chokes you. That godawful thing has been so completely destroyed you should be ashamed to even mention it here. If you can't find a better source for your argument than that 'study' just give it up already. You've lost.

you see... where has it been destroyed? i mean... im sure any person who is a TVNEWSLIES follower would say its bullshit... but it was an independent study, and hey i just look at the daily news everyday as proof of what side the media is on... i mean.. i dont see anyone erring on THE SIDE of the president.. but i see plenty of fuck ups and made up documents TRYING TO DEFACE the president.... and i mean come on.. u shouldnt EVEN NEED to make up shit to get things on bush... lol

hey i just look at the daily news everyday as proof of what side the media is on...

That's what I do.

And the US mainstream media is, and has been since the day he was elected, fawningly subservient to and obeisant to GWBush --and to the GOP in general-- to a degree that is nothing less than sickening.

The function of the Press is supposedly to be critical watchdogs of the government...

...it is NOT their place to ---as the mainstream Media in America does these days-- bow down to the Washington crowd, to never question them, and it is certainly not the Media's job to HELP the government sell its LIES to the People.

you see... where has it been destroyed?There are numerous demolitions of the 'study', but this one is my favorite:

Topic: Miscellaneous items
Date/Time: 12/21/2005 10:08:58 AM
Title: Dow Jones responds to media bias "study"
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

Dow Jones responds to UCLA media bias "study"

Statement by a spokesman for Dow Jones and Co.:

The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident.

By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.

First, its measure of media bias consists entirely of counting the number of mentions of, or quotes from, various think tanks that the researchers determine to be "liberal" or “conservative." By this logic, a mention of Al Qaeda in a story suggests the newspaper endorses its views, which is obviously not the case. And if a think tank is explicitly labeled “liberal” or “conservative” within a story to provide context to readers, that example doesn’t count at all. The researchers simply threw out such mentions.

Second, the universe of think tanks and policy groups in the study hardly covers the universe of institutions with which Wall Street Journal reporters come into contact. What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesn’t include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition, but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Moreover, the ranking the study gives to some of the groups on the list is simply bizarre. How seriously are we to take a system that ranks the American Civil Liberties Union slightly to the right of center, and that ranks the RAND Corp. as more liberal than Amnesty International? Indeed, the more frequently a media outlet quotes the ACLU in this study, the more conservative its alleged bias.

Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ "study" of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is “studied” for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers.

Suffice it to say that “research” of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story.

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808

What made me really angry (and sorry for losing my temper) is that I posted this the last time you brought up this 'study'. Instead of trying to defend the 'study' you keep saying it proves a liberal media bias when that is far from the truth.i mean... im sure any person who is a TVNEWSLIES follower would say its bullshit... Or someone who isn't (like myself) will say it's BS.but it was an independent studyMore BS.

None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV (pdf), received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997. In 1996, Groseclose and Milyo co-authored a piece for the right-wing magazine The American Spectator, titled "Lost Shepherd," criticizing the then-recently defeated member of Congress Karen Shepherd (D-UT) and defending her successor, Enid Greene (R-UT); when the piece was published, Greene was in the midst of a campaign contribution scandal and later agreed to pay a civil penalty after the Federal Election Commission found (pdf) that she violated campaign finance laws.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

and hey i just look at the daily news everyday as proof of what side the media is on... i mean.. i dont see anyone erring on THE SIDE of the president.. but i see plenty of fuck ups and made up documents TRYING TO DEFACE the president....I don't think there are plenty of made up documents but there are indeed alot of 'fuck ups' to cover.and i mean come on.. u shouldnt EVEN NEED to make up shit to get things on bush... lolAgreed.

And the US mainstream media is....fawningly subservient to and obeisant to GWBush --and to the GOP in general-- .And the proof: it's true because it's true.

And the proof: it's true because it's true.

It's true because --just like walking outside and looking up, you can prove to yourself that the sky is still there-- all you have to do is look at the coverage.

There are many things that point up how handcuffed and restricted the Press is under the Bush regime.

Like when Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress that those people (such as reporters) who ask pointed questions about the legalities of the Administration's "war on terrorism" are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Like when Press Secretary Ari Fleischer warned reporters to "watch what you say" about the Administration's anti-terrorism policies.

Like when the Bush Administration's RightWing pit bulls, such as Ann Coulter, claim that anyone who questions or criticizes Bush is a "traitor" who deserves to be shot.

Like when White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan questioned the patriotism of WH correspondent Helen Thomas simply because she "expressed her concerns" about the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War.

Every person or group who looks at and critiques media coverage in this country is all too well aware of how non-confrontational the Media has been toware the Bush Administration and its policies, and how they have been neutered in terms of --for instance--how they are allowed to cover Bush and how they are handcuffed in how they can question him in WH news conferences. In the large gathering of Corporate flac---err, I mean "reporters"--- who were allowed to cover Bush from inside the White house, there was ONE who tended to ask no nonsense questions of bush. What happened to her? She was kicked to the back of the bus.

Several major U.S. newspapers (like the NY Times, for one) actively HELPED the Bush Administration to promote blatant FALSEHOODS that resulted in this country becoming involved in a fiasco in Iraq; those newspapers have in many cases (among the ones that possessed the decency to do so) now come forward to admit they were WRONG to have unquestioningly swallowed the faked info coming from the Bush white house and that they should have been FAR more willing to scrutinize the info and look at it impartially, instead of simply jumping on the "We need to wage war on Iraq" bandwagon with Bush and his co-conspirators.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/2005_05_01_archive.php

Welcome to George Bush's America: Secrecy and propaganda seen sweeping U.S.

New survey shows US media are weak and subservient and that the Bush administration has created a climate of secrecy and propaganda that the media do not pierce.

Excerpt:
"Freedom of the press is in decline in the United States amid increased government secrecy and propaganda, say media veterans, analysts, and advocates.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom here that U.S. media are the freest in the world, the United States has suffered "notable setbacks" in press freedom and has slipped among countries tracked by the New York-based rights group Freedom House.

The organisation, in an annual survey released in advance of Tuesday's commemoration of World Press Freedom Day, said media in Finland, Iceland, and Sweden faced the fewest fetters in 2004 while the most restrictions were slapped on journalists in North Korea, Burma (also known as Myanmar), Cuba, and Turkmenistan. The United States was tied with Barbados, Canada, Dominica, Estonia, and Latvia at 24th place out of 194 countries covered in the survey."

Doubts about official influence over media were fanned by revelations that the administration of President George W. Bush was paying journalists to espouse administration positions without identifying their government sponsors.

In one case, the administration -- seeking to build support among black families for its education policies -- paid a prominent African-American pundit, Armstrong Williams, 240,000 dollars to promote the "No Child Left Behind" law on his nationally syndicated television show and through his newspaper column, and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

"Paying journalists to write positive stories is part of a pattern of secrecy and manipulating the public that undermines our safety and our democracy," Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told IPS.


Compare this with the more vigorous British media that is sharply confronting Blair with HIS liesand poodling during Brit election campaign
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=20953g

Stop the presses. Ann Coulter and Armstrong Williams are biased?

The bias in question is from Reuters. Not Coulter or Franken or Randi Rhodes.

"It's true because --just like walking outside and looking up, you can prove to yourself that the sky is still there-- all you have to do is look at the coverage."
Yeah....show me examples of this coverage.
"It's true because it's true".

Armstrong Williams, Ann Coulter, Randi Rhodes, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo are supposed to have a bias. They are commentators, not news people. We expect them to come to the table with a particular bias. We don't expect it of our news organizations.

Yeah....show me examples of this coverage.

I will.

Knowing that, immediately after I do, you will --like the sycophantic and willfully fucking blind little Rightwing toadie that you are-- shove your fingers in your ears and begin crying --""La la la la laaaa, I can't hear you! La la la la laaaa, I can't hear you!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In his new book- Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, Eric Boehlert provides detailed documentaion of how, time after time, the press chose a soft approach to covering the government, and as a result reported and analyzed crucial events incompletely and even inaccurately. From WMDs to Valerie Plame to the NSA's domestic spying, mainstream fixtures such as The New York Times, CBS, CNN, and Time magazine too often ignored the administration's missteps and misleading words, and did not call out the public officials who betrayed the country's trust. Throughout both presidential campaigns and the entire Iraq war to date, the Media acted as a virtual mouthpiece for the White House, giving watered-down coverage of major policy decisions, wartime abuses of power, and egregious mistakes -- and sometimes these events never made it into the news at all.

In Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, the press is finally being held accountable by one of its own.

Boehlert homes in on the reasons the press did not do its job: a personal affinity for Bush that journalists rarely displayed toward his predecessor, Bill Clinton; a Republican White House that threatened to deny access to members of the media who asked challenging questions or voiced criticism; and a press that feared being tainted by accusations of "liberal bias". Moreover, journalists -- who may have wanted to report accurately on the important stories -- often found themselves at cross-purposes with media executives, many of whom were increasingly driven by economic concerns. Cowed by all of these factors, the media abandoned their traditional role of stirring up meaningful public debate.

Boehlert's book is filled with documentation, detail, and chronology for the news stories (or lack of coverage) in question.

Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush comprises a series of enlightening case studies about mainstream news reporting.

Boehlert convincingly illustrates how the mainstream media scrutinizes liberal politics more harshly, or dismissively, than conservative politics, how conservatives more often than liberals get away with fabricating reality, and why liberals could never get by with using the type of hate filled campaigns employed by the attack dogs on the right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



As for the examples you ask for, I would cite;

The scant coverage afforded the Downing Street memo until six weeks after its publication, and the press lethargy and indifference it illustrates.

The bullying by Ken Tomlinson (the Bush-appointed chairman of the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) of PBS and the efforts of the Bush Administration to purchase journalists with cash , which serve to illustrate the rightwing's attempts to subvert the First Amendment.

Contrast tje journalistic pass given George W. Bush's National Guard service as compared to the eager coverage and higher credibility the journalistic profession gave to O'Neill's Swift Boat smears against John Kerry.

ABC's internet blog *The Note* and its fawning and uncritical promotion of Bush's Iraq policies. (It has come to light that many reporters received promotions or demotions depending upon their attitude toward the war in Iraq. )

The CBS/Dan Rather document scandal, while it was a stupid mistake, was used as a distraction from the larger issue of the true content of Bush's National Guard record.

The self-censorship of the media --thru editorial decisions-- to keep photographs of dead and wounded civilians and soldiers off TV.

The mainstream media's shunning and ridicule of Scott Ritter who before the war in Iraq tried to make people aware that there were no WMDs.

__________________________________

"liberal Media" my fucking ass.

1. The scant coverage afforded the Downing Street memo until six weeks after its publication, and the press lethargy and indifference it illustrates.
2. The bullying by Ken Tomlinson of PBS and the efforts of the Bush Administration to purchase journalists with cash , which serve to illustrate the rightwing's attempts to subvert the First Amendment.
3. Contrast tje journalistic pass given George W. Bush's National Guard service...
4. ABC's internet blog *The Note* and its fawning and uncritical promotion of Bush's Iraq policies.
5. The CBS/Dan Rather document scandal, while it was a stupid mistake, was used as a distraction from the larger issue of the true content of Bush's National Guard record.
6. The self-censorship of the media --thru editorial decisions-- to keep photographs of dead and wounded civilians and soldiers off TV.
7. The mainstream media's shunning and ridicule of Scott Ritter who before the war in Iraq tried to make people aware that there were no WMDs.
8. "liberal Media" my fucking ass.
1. "Scant" is a subjective word that describes your personal feelings and not anything factual. I thought it was covered for the length of its relevance. With the vehemence that CBS and the Dems in congress go after this administration, they would have pounced on it if it meant anything concrete.
2. I thought we were discussing the slant of the media here.
3. A PASS?
4. Good objective description. It's true because it's true I guess.
5. That issue was covered to death already. It's amazing how you can take a great example of Rather's rabid, blind partisanship and try to spin it in any way to prove a point about the reich wing media.
6. That is something that has always been done out of decency not a political agenda. And journalists without an agenda usually abide.

7. Scott Ritter was a joke:
"The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required,'' Ritter wrote in his letter of resignation. He also said that even if disarmed, the Iraqis had a ''breakout scenario'' to fully replenish their biological and chemical weapons within six months. He beseeched America to pressure Iraq into ''full compliance.'' He described ''biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic-missile warheads.''

Then, whoops, I change my mind.
And if the media wanted to marginalize him they would have pounced upon his arrest for sexual internet chat with, what he believed was, a 14 year old girl. I'll bet most people have never even heard about that.

8. How old are you?

1. "Scant" is a subjective word that describes your personal feelings and not anything factual. I thought it was covered for the length of its relevance. With the vehemence that CBS and the Dems in congress go after this administration, they would have pounced on it if it meant anything concrete.
2. I thought we were discussing the slant of the media here.
3. A PASS?
4. Good objective description. It's true because it's true I guess.
5. That issue was covered to death already. It's amazing how you can take a great example of Rather's rabid, blind partisanship and try to spin it in any way to prove a point about the reich wing media.
6. That is something that has always been done out of decency not a political agenda. And journalists without an agenda usually abide.
7. Scott Ritter was a joke

TRANSLATION:

""La la la la laaaa, I can't hear you! La la la la laaaa, I can't hear you!""

____________________________________

As predicted.

That short video is proof of intentional, misleading manipulation.
You responded with absolutely nothing.

TRANSLATION:

""La la la la laaaa, I can't hear you! La la la la laaaa, I can't hear you!""

man u are a dumb tard sometimes FT...

i mean.. how STUPID can u get??? why are you dodging his answers?? My translation is that u are a "one way only" door of information retard who can't get his head out of his ass as much as to see obvious things right in front of you...

#3 was great... George Bush was given a "free pass"... LMAO yea, thats why they had SPECIALS on it on EVERY news network when it first came out.. yea nice free pass... and Clinton got a free pass on the Lewinski scandal too.. right?

man u are a dumb tard sometimes FT....
As opposed to what - a smart tard???

Decka, I know you mean well, but for the love of god, work on your insults.

Oh, and "doors" usually aren't just "one way only".

#3 was great... George Bush was given a "free pass"... LMAO yea, thats why they had SPECIALS on it on EVERY news network when it first came out

I am not aware of it ever being given any sort of in depth coverage, and I certainly do not remeber any "specials" that focused on it. Maybe you can cite the specials and when they were aired.

.. and Clinton got a free pass on the Lewinski scandal too.. right?

No. With Clinton, there were were thousands of hours of news coverage dedicated to a private consensual sexual liason. And he was impeached over it. Compare that to an event 100,000 times as momentous; GWBush lying about WMDs to drag a nation into war. And he never even received -in terms of Media coverage-- a slap on the wrist for it. It has been studiously ignored by the Corporate owned, Corporate run mainstream Media. The bias in favor of the Right and Rightwing politicians in this country is beyond belief.

______________________________________

"liberal" Media my fucking ass

Free Thinkless,

You are always always very quick to condemn GW Bush, and Israel with very little evidence.

I rarely see you condemn the terrorists. If you do condemn the terrorists, your tone is much lighter.

Maybe in November, you can put in a write in for Uncle Hez!

You are always always very quick to condemn GW Bush, and Israel ..

Thank you. One does what one can.

.....with very little evidence.

We disagree. I have presented a great deal of evidence.

I rarely see you condemn the terrorists.

Not true sir!.......I quite often condemn Israeli and U.S. terrorism.

Maybe in November, you can put in a write in for Uncle Hez!

While I must admit to feeling a bit foolish even responding to a fool uttering such childish little asides as, --"Wull why don't you go on an vote fer Uncle Hezboller next election if you luv 'em so dern much!! A hyuck a hyuck!"-- but I just have to ask; why do you refer to them as "Uncle Hez".....?

Here's another good example.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html

yes...God forbid that people show how disgusting war is....

Why don't you stick to the ambulance fraud, thats far more accurate and stupid.

Here's another good example.

How any sane human being could present what you have just presented and claim it to be a "good" example is beyond me.

a) you have NO idea and NO proof whatsoever whether the person in the first photo is the same person in the second photo.

b) you have NO idea and NO proof whatsoever whether the person in the photo on the left is injured, nor how badly he is injured, nor if he lived or died.

What about the rescuer carrying that little girl's body around. He's even dressed differently in some of the pictures. Just how long do you think he was walking around with that body.

And according to the captions with the other young child's body, he was carrying that one around for two hours.

You don't think you're being manipulated?

How any sane human being could present what you have just presented and claim it to be a "good" example is beyond me.

a) you have NO idea and NO proof whatsoever whether the person in the first photo is the same person in the second photo.

b) you have NO idea and NO proof whatsoever whether the person in the photo on the left is injured, nor how badly he is injured, nor if he lived or died.

Are you kidding? Look at the pictures. It's the same guy. What do you want, birth certificates?

Are you kidding? Look at the pictures. It's the same guy. What do you want, birth certificates?

The face of the person in the picture on the right is so dark and so indistinct, if he was my own brother, I could not say for sure it was him.

The face of the person in the picture on the right is so dark and so indistinct, if he was my own brother, I could not say for sure it was him.

In the flash video theres another picture of him (although, it's from the back) where he's wearing the hat and you see his shorts. In the picture when he's "dead/injured" you'll see the same shorts.

I think it's more likely that it's the same guy posing instead of a different guy or that he somehow got injured removing rubble.

In the flash video theres another picture of him (although, it's from the back) where he's wearing the hat and you see his shorts. In the picture when he's "dead/injured" you'll see the same shorts.

I think it's more likely that it's the same guy posing instead of a different guy or that he somehow got injured removing rubble.

If this had anything to do with incriminating Bush.. it would be PLENTY of evidence for FT to say Bush is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

In the flash video theres another picture of him (although, it's from the back) where he's wearing the hat and you see his shorts. In the picture when he's "dead/injured" you'll see the same shorts.

I think it's more likely that it's the same guy posing instead of a different guy or that he somehow got injured removing rubble.

The thing that astounds me is that certain Rightwingers will look at the second picture and --even if it WAS the same person, which seems impossible to me to determine-- with no basis whatsoever claim that he is "faking" being hurt.

Blabing on and on about the displaying of the dead bodies of children is bullshit and shows how much people want to pretend a horrible massacre didn't occur. Argueing over the display of the bodies exposes the true priorities of those pushing it, ignoring the massacre. Regardless of how the photos were taken it is still evident and appalling that so many innocent people and children were slaughtered by the Israeli military.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Overall, Tim was interested in communicating this statement written by fellow photojournalist, Thorne Anderson (appearing in a discussion thread on Lightstalkers, a site largely dedicated to professional photographers) about the recent barrage of charges and assertions (some acknowledged, others explained, many others simply alleged) about "visual integrity," and how to understand the Qana photos. Anderson writes:

Much of the debate about "staging" in Qana can be deflated a good deal by an appreciation of cultural differences. Among many Middle Eastern Muslims the display of the dead is very much a ritual part of dealing with death. Palestinian funeral parades, with or without media present, are a demonstration of this. While the display of the dead may appear callous and disrespectful to many western eyes, it is likely interpreted as a form of honor among those who actually display the dead - an attempt to give meaning to something senseless.

Photographing the display is not necessarily deceiptful, but rather an honest record of the extraordinary ways people react in these terrible circumstances. And a rescueworker displaying a body does not a Media Mogul the rescue worker make. He/She is still a rescue worker. Though the caption for pictures from that portion of the event should read "Rescue workers display the body of..." rather than "Rescue workers remove the body of..."

Furthermore, the sporadic display of bodies at a scene like that shouldn't allow us to dismiss the event as merely a salvo in the "media war" being waged by "Hizbollah and their jihadi friends" in the "mainstream apologist media." And none of this changes the essential, and most important fact that a group of photographers put themselves at great risk to show the result of an Israeli air strike on an apartment building that left 28 people - among them 16 children - dead.

I took a gut wrenching tour of LGF [Little Green Footballs] and a couple of other blogs that are super-hyping the "staging" issue to an audience of hundreds of thousands in what is a transparent and in some cases explicit attempt to deny the simple fact that an Israeli airstrike killed 16 children in Qana. That assault on the essential truth is a far more reprehensible act of overt media warfare (if there is such a thing) than any angry display of a dead body in the immediate aftermath of an airstrike. Reminds me of those who deny the Holocaust for political purposes.

-- Thorne Anderson August 11, 2006.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again complaining about the smoke photos is fine but there comes a point where people are trying to pretend that mass murder is not occuring in Lebanon. It is shameful.

However, what is also shameful is the faked photographs from Lebanon. I am refering to the Ambulance attack (which at this point seems faked). Unfortunatly all I can find coverage of this on is fanatical zionist sites so I can't stand behind it 100%. Again because the people holding this thing up use it to pretend that all the hell rained down on innocent lebanese people is false. But that doesn't mean I don't have a very high suspicion that it was faked.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Also Brooks I want a link to the pics in your sig. The sight that compared the photos would be nice. I tried to find them in the thread and failed. If they aren't bigger then they are in your sig then they are worthless for comparison.

Guerilla, I believe that children were killed by Israel. However, the coverage of it is manipulated and manipulative. I can accept the fact that bodies are displayed at funeral parades, but this rescue worker, according to the captions, did this for about two hours. And this was not part of a cortege.
And in the other series of pictures, the body of a little girl is seen being carried into an ambulance. Then lying in the ambulance. Then being held outside the ambulance by the same rescue worker, who has now changed his clothes slightly.
These displays are being staged for the camera. It doesn't mean it didn't happen (in this case) it just means they are manipulating those who want to be.

In this country, abortion is a much bigger issue than anything that is happening in Lebanon. Why no photo essays on abortion?
Why did media outlets make a conscious decision not to show the most horrifying images of 9/11?


Guerilla - those photos can be found in the video presentation that started this thread.

You can't show any pattern of a reich wing equivalent to what we're talking about here.How about an American secretary of state showing fuzzy pictures of a Winnebago to the United Nations and then claiming it was a "mobile weapons lab?" Seems pretty similar to me....

This thread is about how the media manipulates, alters, changes or exaggerates a story through, in this case, photos.
If you want to talk about the Bush Administration lying, start the 1,367th thread on the issue.

Why did media outlets make a conscious decision not to show the most horrifying images of 9/11?I found a remarkably good article addressing (in part) this issue:

The Falling Man (http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030903_mfe_falling_1.html) published by Esquire September 2003.

I took a gut wrenching tour of LGF [Little Green Footballs] and a couple of other blogs that are super-hyping the "staging" issue....

Makes you feel like puking, doesn't it 500lb?......going there and seeing the ignorance and bigotry and disinformation being disseminated by the Little Green Footballs blog and other uber-Konservative sites like them.

They take their cues from lying SOBs like Neal Boortz, who claimed on nationally syndicated radio yesterday that the body of one little dead girl was being dragged around in an ambulance and then dragged out proudly displayed, then slung back in the ambulance, driven to another spot and dragged out to be displayed again, the same act being repeated over and over.

It is SO hard for elitist assholes like Boortz to understand that people whose entire lives are being destroyed, and their loved ones murdered before their eyes will inevitably, at some point, be so overcome by grief and anger that they will be moved to hold the body of a dead 2 year old girl in their arms and scream at the cameras---- "LOOK!...look upon this with shame, you who did this!!.....look at what is being perpetrated against my family and my people and my country by the world's most powerful nations!!....look at how indiscriminate the kiling is!"


How so many people in America --led by those like Boortz who are their poster boys--- could be so callous as to fail to understand the grief and anger these people must be feeling is beyond my comprehension.

"How about an American secretary of state showing fuzzy pictures of a Winnebago to the United Nations and then claiming it was a "mobile weapons lab?" Seems pretty similar to me...."______fluffernutter

This thread is about how the media manipulates, alters, changes or exaggerates a story through, in this case, photos.

In terms of using a photo to exaggerate something and to disseminate lies, I cannot think of a clearer example than what fluffernutter just mentioned. The fact that is was our OWN federal Government who was misleading the People is even worse that if it were the Media alone.

But then, the mainstream Media in this country is pretty much a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Rightwing powers-that-be, anyway.

Bla bla bla .......................... you keep pushing the same crap.

So What!!!!!!!!!!1 It doesn'tmatter much who owns the media. Most of the people who are in the media are liberals. They have a severe liberal slant. Get your head out of the sand and admit the truth.


In terms of using a photo to exaggerate something and to disseminate lies, I cannot think of a clearer example than what fluffernutter just mentioned. The fact that is was our OWN federal Government who was misleading the People is even worse that if it were the Media alone.

But then, the mainstream Media in this country is pretty much a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Rightwing powers-that-be, anyway.

In terms of using a photo to exaggerate something and to disseminate lies, I cannot think of a clearer example than what fluffernutter just mentioned.
Whether I agree with that or not it just comes off as a non-topical desperate deflection.

...the body of one little dead girl was being dragged around in an ambulance .... that people whose entire lives are being destroyed, ....will be moved to hold the body of a dead 2 year old girl in their arms and scream at the cameras---- "LOOK!...look upon this with shame, you who did thisOkay, once you're done channeling Shakespeare can we get back to this?

This ambulance driver in question, which I stated already, is seen carrying the girl to an ambulance, the girl is photographed in the ambulance, and in the interim he takes his vest off and then takes the girl out again. C'mon Free. Are you this easily used? (yes I anticipate a back-at-ya Bush administration comment as you do a Fluffernutter-like deflection. Save it).

Do me a favor. If I'm ever in rubble and this "rescuer" shows up, could you please tell him to quit mugging for the camera and come get me out?

I found a remarkably good article addressing (in part) this issue:1. I found it kind of offensive. This writer (who happens to write beautifully, I must say) takes this poor man's tragedy and spends the first two pages gushing about the photographer.

Then in his fancy pulitzer-begging prose, goes he gives some cold sterile nobility to the man gracefully frozen in time. In reality the poor man's feet were burning so badly that he could no longer wait for rescue. For all he knew rescue might have been imminent, but his pain was so intense that not even the prospect of possibly seeing his family again was enough to make him want to live anymore. On the way down he screamed, cried and probably wet his pants or worse. Then he left this world as a lump of sinewy pulp and bone shards.
THAT'S the truth about this man. Any attempt to say otherwise diminishes his suffering and diminishes the truth about that day.

2. Though I agree with the premise of not showing pictures like this out of respect to a family who might not have okayed it, there are plenty of other impersonal images we are no longer shown that wouldn't offend them. Some horrific tapes came out last week of people's last words on 911 tapes. It's a perfect media story - it's morbid, easy to understand and our voyeuristic nature would make it a ratings grabber. Guess what - the story went away.
The other day the Democrats implied that invoking 9/11 helps President Bush. He actually got a bump (I believe temporarily) in his popularity on 9/12.
I don't know if those things are tied together, but I believe the Dems and the media do believe it. I think that's why we rarely see this stuff anymore.
If "Remember Pearl Harbor" united the country and enhanced our national resolve, what would be the effect of intentionally NOT remembering 9/11?


Then again, I could be wrong.

How much would the photographer get for these pictures? I assume it is individual gain rather than propaganda at work here.

I found it kind of offensive. This writer (who happens to write beautifully, I must say) takes this poor man's tragedy and spends the first two pages gushing about the photographer.I was a bit put off by that as well. It's one thing for a photographer to put himself in the right place at the right time and quite another to just be there when it happens.Then in his fancy pulitzer-begging prose, goes he gives some cold sterile nobility to the man gracefully frozen in time. In reality the poor man's feet were burning so badly that he could no longer wait for rescue. For all he knew rescue might have been imminent, but his pain was so intense that not even the prospect of possibly seeing his family again was enough to make him want to live anymore. On the way down he screamed, cried and probably wet his pants or worse. Then he left this world as a lump of sinewy pulp and bone shards.
THAT'S the truth about this man. Any attempt to say otherwise diminishes his suffering and diminishes the truth about that day.I didn't take it that way at all. I thought he was trying to be respectful of the man's last seconds of life and was relating what the image conveyed to him. Certainly he was setting the stage for his concluding analogy to the Unknown Soldier. Maybe I got too caught up in the literary device.Though I agree with the premise of not showing pictures like this out of respect to a family who might not have okayed it, there are plenty of other impersonal images we are no longer shown that wouldn't offend them. Some horrific tapes came out last week of people's last words on 911 tapes. It's a perfect media story - it's morbid, easy to understand and our voyeuristic nature would make it a ratings grabber. Guess what - the story went away.Every time I hear a comment like this I wonder how you found out about the story if it is not being covered. I heard clips of the calls on the radio and I saw articles (that I chose not to read, mainly because I had heard the clips) listed on Google News. Sure seems like it was covered to me. I suppose you want to know why Dateline hasn't devoted an hour to it and that I can't tell you. Maybe they will. But I think we've reached the point where there's really nothing new left to say.The other day the Democrats implied that invoking 9/11 helps President Bush. He actually got a bump (I believe temporarily) in his popularity on 9/12.Invoking 9/11 is just about the only thing that helps President Bush. You may have noticed that he invokes it every chance he gets. There is a reason for this.I don't know if those things are tied together, but I believe the Dems and the media do believe it. I think that's why we rarely see this stuff anymore.
If "Remember Pearl Harbor" united the country and enhanced our national resolve, what would be the effect of intentionally NOT remembering 9/11?Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11, it's aftermath and remembrances have been underreported? What do you want, all 9/11 all the time with 30 second spots showing the towers coming down every night on prime time? Maybe you're forgetting that one of the first things President Bush asked for was a return to normal behavior, go shopping, keep the economy moving. Show the terrorists that they can't change the daily lives of Americans and so on. I think a lot of what you're complaining about stems from what he asked of us in the days and weeks following 9/11, back when he was being a uniter not a divider (or decider for that matter). I get the feeling that no matter how exhaustively 9/11 is portrayed by the media it would not be enough for you.Then again, I could be wrong.Well, I think you're right about the last moments of the Falling Man's life, you made your point extremely well. And I think you're on to something about how we are remembering 9/11. I'm pretty good at internet searches (I used to make my living doing them) and it took me close to half an hour to find that article (finally linked from another article on page 3 of "9/11 aftermath images suppressed" IIRC). I had to wade through masses of conspiracy sites, liberals-hate-america sites, conservatives-hate-liberals sites and all the like. But I don't think that indicates some kind of media plot to discredit the President. I think it shows more how divided we are and how distrustful of the government so many of us have become.

If I'm ever in rubble and this "rescuer" shows up, could you please tell him to quit mugging for the camera ....

All your obfuscations do nothing to disguise the fact that you have zero proof that the person in the photo is uninjured.

Stop obsessing on green hat man (although I like how it went from "it's not the same person" to "he might actually be injured"). The photo fraud website is chock-full of other examples that are even more obvious.

Stop obsessing on green hat man .......

That's hilarious....since it is YOU and the other Rightwingers who first brought it up and who obsessively continue to beat your heads against the wall contending it's "good" proof of photo fraud.

(although I like how it went from "it's not the same person" to "he might actually be injured").

It has not ""went from"" anything. I was speaking in the context of --"even it WAS proven to be the same person", you have no proof he isn't injured.

You STILL have no proof it is the same person, and the "other" examples given on that website are equally specious.

And even IF every one of the photo examples given there did have some basis in fact (even though I do not think they do), it would not amount to 1/100th as much pro-war, flag-waving, God-Guns-n-Guts propaganda as what is being pushed by the GOP and their willing accomplices in the mainstream Media.