• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

StevenA59 said:
The problem with the edited photos is obvious. Your position goes beyond bias. You are attempting to deny the facts. Perhaps that is the reason you don't have a problem with faked photos.
Click to expand...

Nothing was faked.
 
Boo Radley said:
NO, that would not be correct. No truth was hidden (catching others in this response). No one could reasonably be thought to believe anything other then the soldier was attacked by those on the ship. Believing otherwise is sheer fiction.
Click to expand...

How can you say that when the photos were cropped to leave out certian details? If somoene took a photo of you kissing a really ugly woman who looked like a guy and cropped it to leave out certian details and shown that cropped/altered photo wouldn't you say the truth was being hidden?
 
jamesrage said:
How can you say that when the photos were cropped to leave out certian details? If somoene took a photo of you kissing a really ugly woman who looked like a guy and cropped it to leave out certian details and shown that cropped/altered photo wouldn't you say the truth was being hidden?
Click to expand...

Easily. The detail was hard to see to egin with, it meant nothing to the photo. No one looked at the photo and thought the soldier hurt himself. So, no meaning was changed at all. In fact, it focuses on the injury, which makes it more sympathetic to the Israeli's and not less so. And no information of misinformation as been given concerning the article accompaning the photo. This is once again whining that is not factually accurate. No truth was hidden at all, period.
 
Boo Radley said:
NO, that would not be correct. No truth was hidden (catching others in this response). No one could reasonably be thought to believe anything other then the soldier was attacked by those on the ship. Believing otherwise is sheer fiction.
Click to expand...

That's your position? Everybody knows the truth, so Reuters publishing faked photos is okay?
 
StevenA59 said:
That's your position? Everybody knows the truth, so Reuters publishing faked photos is okay?
Click to expand...

So, you can't make a logical argment and fall back on everyone knows. Gottcha.
 
Boo Radley said:
Easily. The detail was hard to see to egin with, it meant nothing to the photo. No one looked at the photo and thought the soldier hurt himself. So, no meaning was changed at all. In fact, it focuses on the injury, which makes it more sympathetic to the Israeli's and not less so. And no information of misinformation as been given concerning the article accompaning the photo. This is once again whining that is not factually accurate. No truth was hidden at all, period.
Click to expand...

Hard to see the details? Maybe you need to look at the photo again. The so-called "peace activist" is CLEARLY holding a serrated knife. Editing out the activsts' violence does not increase sympathy for the commandos. That is a lie.

Cropped%20Image-Reuters%201_doomsday_604x341.JPG
 
StevenA59 said:
Hard to see the details? Maybe you need to look at the photo again. The so-called "peace activist" is CLEARLY holding a serrated knife. Editing out the activsts' violence does not increase sympathy for the commandos. That is a lie.

Cropped%20Image-Reuters%201_doomsday_604x341.JPG
Click to expand...

I have looked at it. Couldn't tell what it was. And it carries no meaning to the picture. Again, what do you think someone thinks? Do you really believe someone thought the soldier hurt himself? That his other soldiers hurt him? No, there is no toher conclusion other than he was hurt by those on the ship. Also, what does the accompaning article say? Does it say the soldier hurt himself?

Again, your premise is seriously flawed.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you can't make a logical argment and fall back on everyone knows. Gottcha.
Click to expand...

"Everyone knows the truth, so it's okay to doctor the photos." Is that your position or not?
 
StevenA59 said:
"Everyone knows the truth, so it's okay to doctor the photos." Is that your position or not?
Click to expand...

Not doctored. Cropped to fit. This is often done. Centered, cropped to fit, but not doctored.
 
Stop trying to deflect with word games.

There is no "cropped to fit." Digital photos can be resized. Whatever was done to that photo ... call it what you want ... it was done intentionally and substantially changed the meaning of the picture.

This is photojournalism, my friend. What Reuters did was propaganda.

Vietnam_Execution.jpg
 
StevenA59 said:
Stop trying to deflect with word games.

There is no "cropped to fit." Digital photos can be resized. Whatever was done to that photo ... call it what you want ... it was done intentionally and substantially changed the meaning of the picture.

This is photojournalism, my friend. What Reuters did was propaganda.

Vietnam_Execution.jpg
Click to expand...

There is crop to fit if you want it visable. And there is centering. Why is there no article accompling this complaint btw?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not doctored. Cropped to fit. This is often done. Centered, cropped to fit, but not doctored.
Click to expand...

You are aware that there are lots of free programs that could have reduced the dimensions in order to fit the whole photo? So I imagine that a big news company like Reuters could have used one of those or a professional quality program to reduce the dimensions of the photos.
 
StevenA59 said:
"Everyone knows the truth, so it's okay to doctor the photos." Is that your position or not?
Click to expand...

They are not doctored, they are cropped. There is a huge difference between the two and it is disingenuous for you to suggest they are the same thing. They cropped it the exact same pixel length from each side (top, left, right, bottom).

You tell me what the purpose of the picture is, as related to the Reuters article that uses that picture. Is the purpose of the picture to show the activists did not do anything bad? No. Is the purpose of the picture to show the injuries to the Israeli commandos from the activists? Yes.

Jesus, you guys are trying to put so much spin on something that Reuters admitted was an honest mistake.

OMG U NOE WOT ELSE WOZ CRAWPED OUT???// TEH LIFEJACKET IS MISSSIN!!!!! THIS MEANS DAT REUTERS IS SUGGESTING TEH ACTIVISTS DROWN N KILL DEMSELVES!!!!111`111!!1!
 
StevenA59 said:
Stop trying to deflect with word games.

There is no "cropped to fit." Digital photos can be resized.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. There was not need to crop the photo when digital resizing is easy. Someone else earlier in the thread suggested that it was cropped to bring more "detail" to the soldier. I see absolutely no more detail with the cropped photo when it comes to the soldier.
 
lizzie said:
Excellent point. There was not need to crop the photo when digital resizing is easy. Someone else earlier in the thread suggested that it was cropped to bring more "detail" to the soldier. I see absolutely no more detail with the cropped photo when it comes to the soldier.
Click to expand...

One problem is that the image could not be proportionate to the format it is going into. 5x7 is not proportionate to 8x 10.
 
This entire thread seems to be a non-issue because, as I've already pointed out, the original photo was un-cropped.

I question where LGF got this supposedly doctored photo from or if they changed the photo themselves to create a controversy.
 
Hoplite said:
This entire thread seems to be a non-issue because, as I've already pointed out, the original photo was un-cropped.

I question where LGF got this supposedly doctored photo from or if they changed the photo themselves to create a controversy.
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing that the original photo was uncropped? Reuters has acknowledged that the photo they initially published was cropped:

Article in the OP said:
Reuters on Tuesday denied it intended to alter the political meanings of the photographs.

“The images in question were made available in Istanbul, and following normal editorial practice were prepared for dissemination which included cropping at the edges," the news agency said in a statement. "When we realized that a dagger was inadvertently cropped from the images, Reuters immediately moved the original set as well."
Click to expand...
 
Hoplite said:
This entire thread seems to be a non-issue because, as I've already pointed out, the original photo was un-cropped.

I question where LGF got this supposedly doctored photo from or if they changed the photo themselves to create a controversy.
Click to expand...

That in part is why I keep asking for the article attached to the picture. It would tell us more.
 
jamesrage said:
You are aware that there are lots of free programs that could have reduced the dimensions in order to fit the whole photo? So I imagine that a big news company like Reuters could have used one of those or a professional quality program to reduce the dimensions of the photos.
Click to expand...

Reducing makes it harder to see, and frankly it's hard to see as is. However, I linked a photo array from reuters and challenge you to show they are showing anything that is showing the soldiers not being attacked. Hoplite links the pictures as well, but no one's answered either one of us.
 
Hoplite said:
This entire thread seems to be a non-issue because, as I've already pointed out, the original photo was un-cropped.

I question where LGF got this supposedly doctored photo from or if they changed the photo themselves to create a controversy.
Click to expand...

It is not even a bloody knife. What it contributes to the story the image is telling negligent. It doesn't take way or add to the the story. Now if it was bloody.....
 
winston53660 said:
It is not even a bloody knife. What it contributes to the story the image is telling negligent. It doesn't take way or add to the the story. Now if it was bloody.....
Click to expand...

What story? Can you link the story the photo is atached to?
 
Boo Radley said:
What story? Can you link the story the photo is atached to?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the story the image is telling. And that nonfiction story is about a wounded soldier not the knife.
 
RightinNYC said:
Where are you seeing that the original photo was uncropped? Reuters has acknowledged that the photo they initially published was cropped:
Click to expand...

Thats true, but again, the Reuters site shows the picture as being completely intact. I can only assume then that either the original was restored afterwards or that Reuters meant that they had simply cropped the edges, not cropped away the knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom