Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Shoe, this was not a helpful and halthy post. This is spam, clear and simple. Watch it.

_________________

Ok, I am just going to post once, and try to ignore this thread. It has more mud slinging then a kindergarten class.
Every newspaper does have bias, but I feel that the New York Times has a big, and possibly dangerous, bias. Revealing classified information is bad. Very bad. Yet, time and time again, the New York Times reveals programs integral to National Security. And please do not tell me that the public has the basic right to know, I feel my basic right not to be blown up by terrorists supersedes my right to know what the government is doing.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

dude, i'm australian, your country's history isn't important to me.

And like I said, if there is a terrorist attack on american soil due to the NYT, I will give you all a $50 note!

Some of you really need to pull your heads in, because anyone who believes the NYT is creating security risks is a victim of your country's culture of fear.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free

As a former military man, I can honestly tell you that revealing classified information is not only completely irresponsible but also highly dangerous. And people who don't think it is are just idiots who have no understanding of how valuable information is in armed conflict.

_________________

Glad you've got it all figured out.

The fact is, anytime you print classified information you're putting people at risk. I don't blame the NYT, though. I blame the culture of "let's run it first, then let's figure out what the crap is going on" culture that seems to be taking over the media today. It's not a liberal/conservative thing. It's just a thing that stems from the fierce competition that you see in everything.

As for the culture of fear, I find that laughable. I don't live in fear, but I think that printing classified material does put people at risk.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I cannot conceive of a situation where I would stand idly by and allow a single sniper to take shots at US troops while I merrily photographed the event.

Ladies and gentlemen, a New York Times photographer doing his job in Iraq.

_________________

"Incredible courage"
Allow me to get my puke bucket.
Of course, the NYT is not the only organization with photographers photographing the "other side". Whan a US soldier puts a mortar round into that room, and hopefully, they will before any more of their people get sniped, I suppose he will be called a murderer for killing a civillian photographer.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I do wonder how photographers and journalists can just stand back from events that are unfolding in front of them and dispassionately get on with their work. You'd need to have a heart of steel to be able to do that.

On the one hand, it's almost callous that they don't jump in try to stop whatever horrors are unfolding. But on the other hand, people watching the events at home might be stirred into action at what they're seeing - like donating money or calling on their governments to do something about it, or whatever. So it's a double-edged sword.

You needn't have a heart at all.
Now, I find that just sick. That sniper could have killed all of the soldiers he was aiming at, and all that photographer would do is take pictures and get his pay check.
Yes, I know this conflicts with my previous post, might as well forget that, curiosity killed my common sense.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

What's Her Face, what nationality are you?

_________________

Hmm...... a question that's come out of nowhere, aimed at me. Always an alarming situation.

I'm Irish. Whhhhy..... do you ask?

Yeah, thao too seemed to strike me as odd. Do you have a reason why you asked that La?

_________________

I was just asking because I think your response to the whole "photographing the sniper" thing may be different if he were shooting at Irish troops instead of Americans.

_________________

A couple of factoids that the bloggers on the link site fail to mention: the photographer, Joao Silva, is a freelancer. He does not work for the New York Times. (He has a contract with them -- most likely for exclusivity -- but is not an employee. There's a world of difference.) Furthermore, he isn't even an American citizen; he was born in Portugal and resides in South Africa. The Times is merely purchasing his work. It is neither evil nor treasonous of them to do so...any competent paper would do the same.

I would speculate that Silva is doing his work with the full sanction and approval of the U.S. military. He gets behind enemy lines, takes pictures, and apparently gets back out alive. Do you honestly think military commanders let this guy go and take pictures of the enemy without asking him any questions about enemy positions and movement? They could be learning a lot from him.

Someone on the link site suggests that Silva should've been beating the sniper with his camera. Forgetting for a moment the logistics of camera vs. rifle combat, it doesn't seem likely that those two were alone in that room. Most likely there were other armed men behind Silva at the time. It's not impossible he had a gun to his back when he took the shot.

That sniper would've been up there shooting at U.S. troops regardless. Now we have a picture of him doing it and who knows, maybe a little critical info that will save lives later.

I have to wonder, did Michelle Malkin and Green Footballs know about Silva's actual status with the Times, or did they choose to ignore it as inconvenient to their crusade against the paper?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

Hey, nice work there, Mike D!



You know, you're probably right, I won't deny that. And I think your own response would be different if only Irish troops were involved, right?

Though I'll point out that I wasn't exactly condoning that photographer's behaviour. I said that you'd need a heart of steel to be able to do what war photographers and journalists do. Future historians may thank them, but a heart of steel is not the most positive of traits in any person.

From an Associated Press Washington dispatch:

"We'd love to have a cease-fire," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "But Hezbollah has to be part of it. And at this point, there's no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms."

The AP headline? "U.S. Opposed to Cease-Fire With Hezbollah."

_________________

Another example of the media altering the news to fit their political agenda.



link

_________________

Kudos to Reuters for firing the photographer who Photoshopped his stuff, as explained in the above post. He also doctored at least one other photo, according to this article.

_________________

Yeah, no kidding. Reuters looks like they're trying to save face, and that's not a bad idea.

I once saw something saying "Don't watch the news, create it." It was an ad for a political science department or something.. Looks like this photographer took that a bit far.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Good flash presentation showing some of the ways Reuters, the Associated Press, and the New York times manipulated their photos to make Israel look bad during the Israel\Hezbollah conflict.

_________________

That's a good find, but Reuters didn't doctor the photo, and they DID remove the guy from the list of people they buy photos from. It should be noted that most of those news agencies get their pictures from freelance photographers. Saying that the New York Times (as bad as I would LOVE to see their building burn down) is staging photos and/or placing props in them isn't exactly fair.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Wow. That just blew my mind. I'm not entirely surprised though. It's in their culture to fix the story to meet their emotions. If the facts of the story don't adequately convey the emotion, the first reflex seems to be to change the facts so they match the emotion. That's something we've failed to take into account when dealing with that part of the world the past couple decades. And now western journalists are actually enabling this bad habit? Gettin' problematic. The freelance thing needs more oversight.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

I think a big part of the problem is the hurry editors are in to get stuff out the door, plus I wonder how well trained they are to recognize doctored pictures and staged props. I bet they see a bunch of pictures, and due to the dramatic nature of some of those photos, send them right out the door because they pull at the heart strings. Watching the slideshow, it's easy to agree that yes, all these were examples of bad journalism. But I believe the malfeasance was on the parts of unscrupulous photographers, who were more concerned with making a sale than accuracy. Additional training and staff will help to better detect these kinds of issues, but if a photographer is dedicated enough at wanting to fool people, some fakes will always slip through. I doubt there is a complete solution to this problem.

_________________

I know this an old post, but... I have two words: Jayson Blair.

Yes, I know Jayson Blair isn't representative of the New York Times, but it shows that stuff still happens from time to time. (On a less serious note: the NYT is partly responsible for the popular but inaccurate rumor that when JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner", he actually said "I am a jelly doughnut".)

- Kef