Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's not a conspiracy theory- it's media bias at its best.
You have to prove that claim.
It's not a conspiracy theory- it's media bias at its best.
Except no one has yet proven it to be anything beyond an honest mistake, except by claiming a conspiracy for one reason or another.It's not a conspiracy theory- it's media bias at its best.
How is one supposed to take a video seriously when the 2 people doing their 'investigative reporting' are wearing rat costumes? Your posts belong in the conspiracy theory forum.because the video is smack dab right on the website. but if you'd like to see it on youtube: YouTube - Rat Report - Newspaper Guild of NY 'real' real eastate summit Video.mp4
I gave it a 'like' because it's kind of funny, and I feel like Thomson Reuters has been messing up a bit lately.
Now I know what Snapple feels like when sprayed out the nose.How is one supposed to take a video seriously when the 2 people doing their 'investigative reporting' are wearing rat costumes?
because the video is smack dab right on the website. but if you'd like to see it on youtube: YouTube - Rat Report - Newspaper Guild of NY 'real' real eastate summit Video.mp4
I gave it a 'like' because it's kind of funny, and I feel like Thomson Reuters has been messing up a bit lately.
It's to support his contention that Reuters did it intentionally. He's trying to give evidence to support the conspiracy theory angle.So what does this have to do with the issue of cropping photographs?
Where was blood edited out?
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.
Yes, yes you do.I don't have to PROVE Reuters' intent.
To which they admitted and fixed.It was Reuters' error
No, it isnt. Aside from the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is no proof to suggest this was intentional.Reuters crapped on the carpet, and now it's up to them to prove it was an accident and not intentional.
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.
Again, did anyone look at the picture and think the soldier just fell down?
Exactly. No one thinks he fell down. Everyone who saw the picture from the beginning thought he was knocked down. Thanks for supporting me.
Yes, yes you do.
To which they admitted and fixed.
No, it isnt. Aside from the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is no proof to suggest this was intentional.
I am not responsible for what another user says. If you want to know why he says something, ask him, not me.So which is it, guys? Get your stories straight.
Maybe we could be a little less snippy and we'd get somewhere, hmm?Maybe we don't need any photos at all. Maybe everybody knows everything and we don't need facts or evidence. Maybe, maybe not.
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.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.
Ok, I'm gonna assume you're new at this and give you the benefit of the doubt here.No, no I don't.
Someone pointing out a mistake that you are un-aware of is generally how mistakes get corrected.After they got caught.
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.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.
Can you prove that Reuters does this?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?
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?
Can you prove that Reuters does this?
Then what the hell is your point?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.
Patterns dont mean anything unless there's a purpose behind the patterns, which you cannot supply.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. :roll:
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.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.
Try me.Yes. But can you believe it?
Then what the hell is your point?
Patterns dont mean anything unless there's a purpose behind the patterns, which you cannot supply.
Try me.
Done with this trollIf 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.
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.
If it's so common, then finding proof for it shouldn't be a challenge.One should not have to prove that which is common sense.
If it's so common, then finding proof for it shouldn't be a challenge.
One should not have to prove that which is common sense.
A man robs a bank at gunpoint. He is guilty of robbery. His motive is irrelevant. You want to make this all about intent. Intent is irrelevant. You're the defense attorney at the bank robber's trial shouting, "You can't prove his motive!" despite incontrovertible physical evidence.
Reuters shows a pattern of manipulating the facts (photos). That is the only thing that is relevant here. Epic fail.
You are right. It's even an established legal concept: res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself."
Res ipsa loquitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clearly the reason why the anti-Israel crowd is okay with hiding evidence and then claiming there's no "proof." The evidence they're trying to hide is damning.
No, epic fail is your horrid false analogies.
We are including intent because intent is the only thing that could be explain why (if this was nothing more than an honest mistake) Reuters would do what it is accused of doing.
You cannot prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. So you attack Reuters' history, and then try to use past mistakes as evidence that Reuters does this knowingly and willingly. Burden of proof is on you since you were the one with the ridiculous claim. Do not get so upset because you cannot substantiate your assertion. It is not our fault your claim is baseless and devoid of factual reasoning.
At the end of the day, you have nothing but your own biased opinion that Reuters did this purposefully (knowingly and willingly) with the intent "to portray Israel in a poor light".Reuters, at the end of the day, clearly edited photo to portray Israel in a poor light.
Fail. Come back when you can prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. There's this thing called burden of proof. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it is really common when debating.Yes, they have bias. Get used to it, the world is biased and if you can't handle that then, well, I suggest C-SPAN and the Gilmore Girls.
At the end of the day, you have nothing but your own biased opinion that Reuters did this purposefully (knowingly and willingly) with the intent "to portray Israel in a poor light".
Fail. Come back when you can prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. There's this thing called burden of proof. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it is really common when debating.