Real news, Fake picture....

[Fledermaus]

I look at it like this. Say you are a photographer on assignment at this chaotic border crossing, where people are getting arrested left and right. You aren't a reporter, and you aren't an interviewer, a politician, or a pundit. You are you. A photographer who is supposed to capture the event and that's it. Getty is not known for their journalist capabilities anyway.

So you take this shot of a kid crying and get on your plane and go home. You sell the picture to Time Magazine, which writes an article about the event, but not necessarily the kid. Washington Post with the resources they have, digs into who the kid is, and they find out she didn't get separated.

It's really not as nefarious as everyone thinks it is. This scenario also highlights the problems going on down there and that it took TIME MAGAZINE, for this guy to find his wife and daughter! Otherwise without that picture, he might have had a really hard time finding them.

I would call that LAZY at best...

But LAZY journalism appears to be acceptable to some.

 

[Fledermaus]

But it represents it very well

A photo of a child NOT TAKEN is representative of children TAKEN....

Ummmm.................... No.

 

[Fledermaus]

And yet... 2500 kids were taken from their parents. I really don't care. Do u?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

2,500 children were taken when their parents broke the law...

Next time one is arrested/detained in the US can we ask the police to let our kin into the holding cell?

 

[NeverTrump]

I would call that LAZY at best...

But LAZY journalism appears to be acceptable to some.

It's not lazy. A photojournalists job is not necessarily to get the story. It depends on assignment and how corporate assigned the tasks. You all act like you are so tough "exposing fake news," and bringing down the media, when you don't even know the slightest things about how those companies work.

Also Last I checked, Getty is known for their stock images, not sprawling news articles. Or are you telling me you read playboy for their articles.

 

[Fledermaus]

It's not lazy. A photojournalists job is not necessarily to get the story. It depends on assignment and how corporate assigned the tasks. You all act like you are so tough "exposing fake news," and bringing down the media, when you don't even know the slightest things about how those companies work.

Also Last I checked, Getty is known for their stock images, not sprawling news articles. Or are you telling me you read playboy for their articles.

Was the child taken from her parents or not?

Were the Obama era photos of children in cages promoted as Trump era? Yes or no?

 

[NeverTrump]

Was the child taken from her parents or not?

Were the Obama era photos of children in cages promoted as Trump era? Yes or no?

Since you are asking these questions, it's clear that you didn't comprehend a single thing I posted. Have you ever shared a picture that you didn't know the entire background to? Have you ever shared a meme on the internet? If so....you have no right to be angry at Time.

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Someone took the photo, it became a symbol. You could say what you did of the famous photo of a kid in Shanghai crying amidst the rubble. The flag appeals to emotion, as did the dead migrant kid washed up on the beach a few years ago. I heard once that the famous flag raise photo on Iwo Jima was posed. Big deal. They represent reality.

The pic and for that matter the Time Magazine photo combo of her with Trump is a symbol of a wrong headed, cruel possibly illegal policy put into effect by the president, no different than the symbolism of his never to be built wall.

 

[Fledermaus]

Since you are asking these questions, it's clear that you didn't comprehend a single thing I posted. Have you ever shared a picture that you didn't know the entire background to? Have you ever shared a meme on the internet? If so....you have no right to be angry at Time.

I haven't posted it on the internet claiming it to be what it isn't.

 

[Exactice]

You could say that of the famous photo of a kid in Shanghai crying amidst the rubble. The flag appeals to emotion, as did the dead migrant kid washed up on the beach a few years ago. I heard once that the famous flag raise photo on Iwo Jima was posed. Big deal.

The pic and for that matter the Time Magazine photo combo of her with Trump is a symbol of a wrong headed, cruel possibly illegal policy put into effect by the president, no different than the symbolism of his never to be built wall.

Fact CHECK

TRUMP has NOTHING to do with children being separated highly discussed.....

NO HE DID NOT,

His Initial Policy is ZERO Tolerance. This is Specific to prosecuting anyone and everyone NO discretion no catch and release, ALL that comes through illegally will get prosecuted.

What HE did DO was add an EO provision to keep the children together with the Parents. HAS NOTHING with the Zero tolerance policy that should be in effect NOR did he BACK DOWN from it. He is just making his case that he is using discretion like OTHER administrations through an EO and not just when it feels good for them.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html

 

[Nickyjo]

Its obvious that trump made a fatal mistake by tearing children away from their parents. Its a mistake that won't be forgotten come November. Why else would your kind be spending days trying to justify his actions. Its all you can talk about. You have your marching orders, to hell with the children, its all about politics. Fortunately, this is one battle you will never win.[/QUOTE

The manufactured outrage of the left is like a car alarm down the block - always going off, annoying, and ignored.

Obviously Trump and republicans didn't ignore it.

 

[Exactice]

Obviously Trump and republicans didn't ignore it.

FACT CHECK AGAIN,

Adults illegally crossed the border and were detained, While they had their children, The ADULTS made the fatal mistake of putting their children in Jeopardy by breaking the law


You can Thank Floridafan for all the fact checking!!! Thanks Florida!

 

[NeverTrump]

I haven't posted it on the internet claiming it to be what it isn't.

Did Time?

PS Art is always, always open to interpretation.

 

[Nickyjo]

A photo of a child NOT TAKEN is representative of children TAKEN....

Ummmm.................... No.

Ummm...... Yes. This may be news to you, but neither Trump nor the kid posed together for Time. It is symbolic of an event, a misguided policy that was then altered by people's outrage.

 

[Exactice]

Did Time?

PS Art is always, always open to interpretation.

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.

Totally Agree art is alwasy open to interpretation, BUT how does this help us support immigration reform. Does this NOT continue to drive a nail between it by creating more needless animosity.

 

[Nickyjo]

FACT CHECK AGAIN,

Adults illegally crossed the border and were detained, While they had their children, The ADULTS made the fatal mistake of putting their children in Jeopardy by breaking the law


You can Thank Floridafan for all the fact checking!!! Thanks Florida!

No, the kids, many of them, were in jeopardy in Honduras.

 

[Exactice]

No, the kids, many of them, were in jeopardy in Honduras.

And that is the USA's responsibility HOW? And gives them the right to break our laws without consequences?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

A photo of a child NOT TAKEN is representative of children TAKEN....

Ummmm.................... No.

You are wrong

If the photo was not a reasonable representation of what was happening no one would have thought it involved a child who was taken. As such it provided a visual representation of children being taken, whether or not the specifics of the photo match it accurately

 

[Exactice]

You are wrong

If the photo was not a reasonable representation of what was happening no one would have thought it involved a child who was taken. As such it provided a visual representation of children being taken, whether or not the specifics of the photo match it accurately

So misrepresentation is OK? To include photos that misrepresent the true situation.

Children are NOT being Taken, Children are being safeguarded by statute and by Law enforcement Policy. The reason why the children have to be separated and safeguarded is that the Adult, Guardian or Parent, intentionally broke the law.

MORE so if the child showed up un accompanied. The parent left the child intentionally in danger?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So misrepresentation is OK? To include photos that misrepresent the true situation.

Children are NOT being Taken, Children are being safeguarded by statute and by Law enforcement Policy. The reason why the children have to be separated and safeguarded is that the Adult, Guardian or Parent, intentionally broke the law.

MORE so if the child showed up un accompanied. The parent left the child intentionally in danger?

So the children were voluntarily given to the state by their parents? That is not what I read. As such they were taken, you can play word games all you want, the children were taken and during that time most likely crying

 

[ttwtt78640]

Therefore to the dishonest hacks, that must mean that kids are not being taken from their parents, even though they are

No, it means that the picture used in this appeal to emotion 'news story' requires no connection to actual events. TV ads do this quite a bit - I guess that a real doctor simply does not look as appealing as the 'actor portrayal' of a doctor does - the difference is that TV commercials must include that disclaimer.

 

[Threegoofs]

No it means that the picture used in this appeal to emotion 'news story' requires no connection to actual events. TV ads do this quite a bit - I guess that a real doctor simply does not look as appealing as the 'actor portrayal' of a doctor does - the difference is that TV commercials must include that disclaimer.

But the story is that the policy has changed to make things deliberately unpleasant for families.

The photo showed that brilliantly.

No one knew what became of the child until now, so there was no ‘lie’ or even misrepresentation. Given the lack of transparency, I don’t think any officials would be giving information even if they knew what happened.

I wonder who in this thread is upset that they were kept together? Seems like more than a few...

 

[Lovebug]

I've seen a lot of kids cry, esp at the check out at a store. You know, the place where they keep all the candy. Pic doesn't impress me, at all.

 

[Fledermaus]

You are wrong

If the photo was not a reasonable representation of what was happening no one would have thought it involved a child who was taken. As such it provided a visual representation of children being taken, whether or not the specifics of the photo match it accurately

Black is a reasonable representation of white if you ignore the fact black isn't white.

There was no child "TAKEN" ergo this is not a reasonable representation of a child "TAKEN".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Since you are asking these questions, it's clear that you didn't comprehend a single thing I posted. Have you ever shared a picture that you didn't know the entire background to? Have you ever shared a meme on the internet? If so....you have no right to be angry at Time.

Yes and this is one of them:



The difference is that I did not do so claiming that it represented anything wrong, criminal or evil. It is simply a picture of an apparently unhappy child.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ummm...... Yes. This may be news to you, but neither Trump nor the kid posed together for Time. It is symbolic of an event, a misguided policy that was then altered by people's outrage.

And this has what to do with the fact the picture DID NOT represent what the media claimed it represented?