Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 324

Thread: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

  1. #281
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    So what does this have to do with the issue of cropping photographs?
    It's to support his contention that Reuters did it intentionally. He's trying to give evidence to support the conspiracy theory angle.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  2. #282
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Where was blood edited out?
    Of the photo. Seriously, dude.

    BTW, if you make a claim, that they did this due to bias, you do have to support that claim. YOu can say the cropped the edges. You would be factually correct. But if you say why, you have to offer support. So, when asked where is the support, you either have to provide some, or admit you have none.
    You don't know much about journalism I guess. A journalist who lacks impartiality isn't a journalist, he's a clown or politico like Rush Limbaugh. For Reuters to repeatedly edit damning evidence out of the photos creates the appearance of bias. I don't have to PROVE Reuters' intent. It was Reuters' error, Reuters crapped on the carpet, and now it's up to them to prove it was an accident and not intentional.

  3. #283
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    I don't have to PROVE Reuters' intent.
    Yes, yes you do.

    It was Reuters' error
    To which they admitted and fixed.

    Reuters crapped on the carpet, and now it's up to them to prove it was an accident and not intentional.
    No, it isnt. Aside from the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is no proof to suggest this was intentional.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  4. #284
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

    Re: Omfg!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    Cut the crap. Photography 101; make sure your subject is centered in your shot.

    It seems to me it would have been MORE political to leave the picture un-cropped because you are then suggesting via the photo that the man with the knife in the picture stabbed the soldier, of which there is no proof that isnt circumstantial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, did anyone look at the picture and think the soldier just fell down?
    So which is it, guys? Get your stories straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Exactly. No one thinks he fell down. Everyone who saw the picture from the beginning thought he was knocked down. Thanks for supporting me.
    Maybe we don't need any photos at all. Maybe everybody knows everything and we don't need facts or evidence. Maybe, maybe not.

    At a murder trial, the murder weapon is key evidence. No prosecutor is dumb enough to say, "We know he was shot, we don't need to see a gun." Your argument is so weak I can't believe you keep repeating it.

    Anybody remember this series of faked Reuters photos from a couple of years ago?

    Little Green Footballs - Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?

  5. #285
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    Yes, yes you do.
    No, no I don't.

    To which they admitted and fixed.
    After they got caught.

    No, it isnt. Aside from the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is no proof to suggest this was intentional.
    And nothing to suggest it wasn't. See my earlier comments about journalistic integrity. Once is a mistake. A dozen times isn't a mistake. But as I've said again and again, the intentionality isn't the issue. The issue is, Reuters can't be trusted to produce a factual, unbiased report.

    I'm just guessing, but one reason may be Reuters hiring of terrorist propagandists as photographers. It's one of those things that make you go "huh?" Like peace activists sticking people with knives. Huh?

  6. #286
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    So which is it, guys? Get your stories straight.
    I am not responsible for what another user says. If you want to know why he says something, ask him, not me.


    Maybe we don't need any photos at all. Maybe everybody knows everything and we don't need facts or evidence. Maybe, maybe not.
    Maybe we could be a little less snippy and we'd get somewhere, hmm?

    At a murder trial, the murder weapon is key evidence. No prosecutor is dumb enough to say, "We know he was shot, we don't need to see a gun." Your argument is so weak I can't believe you keep repeating it.
    Actually a number of murder trials achieve conviction without having a murder weapon. A weapon helps, but is not strictly necessary. If that were true, all you'd need to do is destroy the weapon you used to commit a crime and you'd get off.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    No, no I don't.
    Ok, I'm gonna assume you're new at this and give you the benefit of the doubt here.

    This is how it works.

    1. You make a claim about something (In this case, you claim the cropping was a deliberate political move)

    2. Someone else contests that claim (In this case, I contend that it was accidental)

    3. You provide evidence to support your original claim or withdraw it.

    You DO need to show that Reuters intentionally manipulated the photo with the intent to deceive people

    After they got caught.
    Someone pointing out a mistake that you are un-aware of is generally how mistakes get corrected.

    And nothing to suggest it wasn't. See my earlier comments about journalistic integrity. Once is a mistake. A dozen times isn't a mistake. But as I've said again and again, the intentionality isn't the issue. The issue is, Reuters can't be trusted to produce a factual, unbiased report.
    The issue is you cannot provide any solid proof in this particular instance that this photo was doctored intentionally for political reasons. If you cannot do that, your claim becomes worthless. I dont care about other events right now, if you want to address them, start a new thread that deals with those other incidents.

    I'm just guessing, but one reason may be Reuters hiring of terrorist propagandists as photographers. It's one of those things that make you go "huh?" Like peace activists sticking people with knives. Huh?
    Can you prove that Reuters does this?
    Last edited by Hoplite; 06-19-10 at 02:34 AM.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  7. #287
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    This is how it works.

    1. You make a claim about something (In this case, you claim the cropping was a deliberate political move)

    2. Someone else contests that claim (In this case, I contend that it was accidental)

    3. You provide evidence to support your original claim or withdraw it.

    You DO need to show that Reuters intentionally manipulated the photo with the intent to deceive people


    Someone pointing out a mistake that you are un-aware of is generally how mistakes get corrected.

    The issue is you cannot provide any solid proof in this particular instance that this photo was doctored intentionally for political reasons. If you cannot do that, your claim becomes worthless. I dont care about other events right now, if you want to address them, start a new thread that deals with those other incidents.

    Can you prove that Reuters does this?
    Where did I say Reuters actions were deliberate? I plainly said we don't need to know Reuters' motives. I said that several times. Your argument is a straw man.

    And yes Reuters' history is very relevant. It shows a pattern of deception. Accidental deception ... if you prefer LOL. Just like Reuters seems to hire a lot of terrorist sympathizers, and just like they keep doctoring the evidence. Accidentally, of course.

    Now you're saying Reuters history of misstating the facts is irrelevant. Just like the knife and the pool of blood are irrelevant. My friend, you have zero credibility left.

  8. #288
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Can you prove that Reuters does this?
    Yes. But can you believe it?

  9. #289
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    Where did I say Reuters actions were deliberate? I plainly said we don't need to know Reuters' motives. I said that several times. Your argument is a straw man.
    Then what the hell is your point?

    And yes Reuters' history is very relevant. It shows a pattern of deception. Accidental deception ... if you prefer LOL. Just like Reuters seems to hire a lot of terrorist sympathizers, and just like they keep doctoring the evidence. Accidentally, of course.
    Patterns dont mean anything unless there's a purpose behind the patterns, which you cannot supply.

    Now you're saying Reuters history of misstating the facts is irrelevant. Just like the knife and the pool of blood are irrelevant. My friend, you have zero credibility left.
    Im saying it's irrelevant to this particular incident. If you're going to try to throw the subject off, be less obvious about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    Yes. But can you believe it?
    Try me.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  10. #290
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

    Re: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    Then what the hell is your point?

    Patterns dont mean anything unless there's a purpose behind the patterns, which you cannot supply.
    If Ford Fiestas have a pattern of blowing up when they go over 20 miles per hour, I don't need proof of malicious intent to know that the mistake lies with Ford, the responsibility lies with Ford, and that I don't want to drive a Fiesta. I can know all that without having proof of intent.

    Try me.
    You dismissed Reuters' history as irrelevant. Now you're saying I should prove my historical comment. I guess you think I have nothing better to do than go around in circles with you. Not gonna happen.
    Last edited by StevenA59; 06-19-10 at 03:35 AM.

Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •