• 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!

Real news, Fake picture....

Floridafan said:
Its a representation of Trumps crimes.
Click to expand...

What crime did he commit. I am waiting for a criminal prosecution.

As well as ANY state or federal judge to go to the SCOTUS and ask them to prosecute for an actual crime.


WHAT CRIME....
 
The photo isn’t fake, but it doesn’t apply to the story it was paired up with.

This particular incident strikes me more as lazy journalism than an intentional lie. Not that the photo hasn’t since been used in intentionally deceitful ways.
 
Fledermaus said:
View attachment 67234862



The widely shared photo of the little girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother became a symbol of the families pulled apart by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border, even landing on the new cover of Time magazine.

But the girl’s father told The Washington Post on Thursday night that his child and her mother were not separated, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed that the family was not separated while in the agency’s custody. In an interview with CBS News, Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz, who was among the first to encounter the mother and her daughter at the border in Texas, said the image had been used to symbolize a policy but “that was not the case in this picture.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-mother-father-says/?utm_term=.bf809755a137
Click to expand...

Well, that should just be something to whip up manufactured ourage to protect our traitorous cheeto? Collosal FAIL, and it doesn't even strech credibility, except in thsse with partisan nerousis....:lamo
 
Floridafan said:
Its totally a republican issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that the right does it - they totally do, look at Fox, but it's not something exclusive to Right Wingers.
 
Tres1B said:
I honestly never thought it was real, to be honest.

It looks like an image that was specifically designed to appeal to emotion, regardless of authenticity.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what magazines do? You people are so desperate to belive TRump the traitorous cheeto is legit (he isn't regarles of "collusion"), it's a cult for sure.... Wow

Better grab your security blankie for Mueller time!:lamo:peace
 
Fledermaus said:
View attachment 67234862



The widely shared photo of the little girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother became a symbol of the families pulled apart by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border, even landing on the new cover of Time magazine.

But the girl’s father told The Washington Post on Thursday night that his child and her mother were not separated, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed that the family was not separated while in the agency’s custody. In an interview with CBS News, Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz, who was among the first to encounter the mother and her daughter at the border in Texas, said the image had been used to symbolize a policy but “that was not the case in this picture.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-mother-father-says/?utm_term=.bf809755a137
Click to expand...

Know why we dont have a photo of a little girl crying who was NOT detained with her mother?

The government wasnt allowing pictures of that. Only boys.

It is amusing, however, to see the people who cry that the WaPo is 'fake nooze!' worship a story from...WaPo.
 
Fledermaus said:
It is a picture that truthfully DOES NOT represent any of the 2500 children who were taken from their parents.
Click to expand...

Cuz the brown people = scary huh? Dog whistle politics and false eqivalance has you hating foreiners and it's just pathetic...

Do you understnad the difference between a newspapaer and a magazing or os Fox your ownly feed source?
 
If I take a real photo of, say, a black man with a pistol taken in 1992 in FL, and paste it above a story about skyrocketing crime rates in Chicago...


Would any of you consider that dishonest?
 
markjs said:
Isn't that what magazines do? You people are so desperate to belive TRump the traitorous cheeto is legit (he isn't regarles of "collusion"), it's a cult for sure.... Wow

Better grab your security blankie for Mueller time!:lamo:peace
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't like Trump and hope we can successfully avoid a second term for him. I'm not even Right Wing. Regardless, I don't like false information, whether the person it's about is good or bad.
 
Tres1B said:
For the record, I don't like Trump and hope we can successfully avoid a second term for him. I'm not even Right Wing. Regardless, I don't like false information, whether the person it's about is good or bad.
Click to expand...

Well I agree there, this is a story, but for a mag cover I find it irreleant, some kids were snatched, they had a pic of an arrest, that TINY detail is important to note, but for a weekly magazing print publicaction, that has to have that pic, I see nothing wrong with it, althrouhg it might need a footnote in the artice,maybe there is one?
 
KevinKohler said:
If I take a real photo of, say, a black man with a pistol taken in 1992 in FL, and paste it above a story about skyrocketing crime rates in Chicago...


Would any of you consider that dishonest?
Click to expand...

IN a newspaper or TV yes, on a glossy mag where it's obviously an art edit? Absolutely not, thou, again, would wanna see a note inside about the picture, and I bet there is one.
 
markjs said:
IN a newspaper or TV yes, on a glossy mag where it's obviously an art edit? Absolutely not, thou, again, would wanna see a note inside about the picture, and I bet there is one.
Click to expand...

How about pictures from 2014 about a crisis Trump created? Cuz that happened, too. Is that dishonesty?
 
markjs said:
IN a newspaper or TV yes, on a glossy mag where it's obviously an art edit? Absolutely not, thou, again, would wanna see a note inside about the picture, and I bet there is one.
Click to expand...

Here is the questions. With respect to the 1st Amendment.

We know that it was or has the intention of being controversial and almost incendiary. Is that "Times" magazine's intent? It serves what purpose but to stir up more needless and reckless emotions?

Look at my responses to Floridafan, Their responses are purely emotional with NOT facts, I have provided 3 responses with facts and a personal account. Its sad as I dont want to personally attack or fight Floridafan, I just want an respectable solution that we can both understand and agree upon. But when needles emotion is generated you lose sight of the goal and more so of the actual intent.

It really is discouraging.
 
markjs said:
Cuz the brown people = scary huh? Dog whistle politics and false eqivalance has you hating foreiners and it's just pathetic...

Do you understnad the difference between a newspapaer and a magazing or os Fox your ownly feed source?
Click to expand...

WTF are you trying to say? Did I quote Fox? No. As to the "brown people = scary" that dog don't hunt either... Mixed marriage....

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom