Media Bias Rears its Head - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-19-2004, 06:55 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
[Q]Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So what right wing blog did this one come from?[/Q]

Are we going to play this game every time I post? I have responded politely to you in the other thread. If you have an issue with something I post, please PM me. As I said to you, I hate it when people link to left wing propaganda. I have tried in all my time here not to do the same. There is nothing RIGHT wing about what I posted, unless it is now RIGHT WING to believe that there is media bias against the US.

[Q]If you're trying to paint is as left-wing bias then I'd merely point out that the Telegraph is the most right-wing of all the broadsheet newspapers we have in this country, closely followed by the Times. Honestly, that liberal media bias. [/Q]

Actually I am a little bothered that you are trying to paint my post as an attack on the "liberal media"(Your words not mine). None of what I posted indicates that I felt it was a "liberal media" bias. It almost appears to me that you have a personal issue with what I post based on the above sentences, or that you feel that I cannot have an opinion that does not come from the right. I think that is a shame, since I have made an ethical point about journalistic integrity. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[Q]As for the allegation that the press are willing to show pictures of US atrocities: the press show extreme caution in printing images from Iraq. I can't begin to count how many shocking pictures I've seen of "coalition" troops abusing Iraqis which haven't made it to the mainstream press. It is near impossible to have a decent understanding of the current situation in Iraq simply from reading the mainstream press.
[/Q]

So you disagree that there is an uneven playing field. Not publishing pictures is quite different from EDITING them to portray something not as horrific. There have also been many horrific pictures from the war that have made it in. I cited the vietnam picture as an example. If you do not see a difference beteween editing and not showing fine.

I do believe this photo was edited to diminish the anger towards terrorism. It was the wrong thing to do.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 07:00 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,

I don't know where I read it (maybe in the paper I bought last Saturday which had a large comments section on this photograph), but IIRC the reason they did edit the photographs was that the newspaper editor(s) thought it was too much. Even without the limb the photo portrays a horrible image.
Here in the Netherlands they did publish the original photo and got a lot of negative reactions (if it was really necessary to show that limb).

BTW, is it really not presenting the truth when a photo is edited like this?

Marty
Marty,

Thanks for your response. I do believe it is wrong to edit the photograph. If we are not willing to accept the reality of the situation, with all of its horror, then it does have an impact on how the situation is viewed. In my opinion, it is necessary to show the truth.


Matt
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 11:37 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Are we going to play this game every time I post? I have responded politely to you in the other thread. If you have an issue with something I post, please PM me. As I said to you, I hate it when people link to left wing propaganda. I have tried in all my time here not to do the same.
I would think that asking for the source of a picture or article is quite legitimate. Apparently you disagree, as shown by you declining to name the source of the Le Monde article you posted or the source of these photographs. I don't see the difference between linking to "propaganda" and posting said propaganda. If anything, I would say posting it is worse as people don't have to consciously decide to click on the link. In any case, I don't have any problem with people posting "propaganda" from either side of the argument, although the definition of propaganda is certainly open to debate.

Please don't let's make this into another personal fight, Dread -- there are enough of them in FYM already and we don't need any more, right?

Quote:
It almost appears to me that you have a personal issue with what I post based on the above sentences, or that you feel that I cannot have an opinion that does not come from the right. I think that is a shame, since I have made an ethical point about journalistic integrity. Please do not put words into my mouth.
Your claim, by your own admission, is that papers edited this photo due to "media bias" - what bias were you referring to? Bias in favour of terrorism? Bias against the United States?

Your original post was about the claim that "when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs." A completely false allegation often made about the left-wing press is that they are "anti-US" or "try to portray America in a negative light." It's not a claim that's frequently made about the right-wing press, so forgive me for associating your comments with criticism of the left-wing press.

Quote:
So you disagree that there is an uneven playing field. Not publishing pictures is quite different from EDITING them to portray something not as horrific. There have also been many horrific pictures from the war that have made it in. I cited the vietnam picture as an example. If you do not see a difference beteween editing and not showing fine.
I agree: there's a difference between editing a picture and refusing to print a picture. However, you made the claim that the press has "NO PROBLEM" publishing photographs of American atrocities: I merely pointed out the censorship of images showing atrocities committed by "coalition" soldiers in Iraq as evidence that the mainstream media clearly does have a problem with printing photographs of American atrocities.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 01:04 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I would think that asking for the source of a picture or article is quite legitimate. Apparently you disagree, as shown by you declining to name the source of the Le Monde article you posted or the source of these photographs.
I was asked not to drag issues from one thred to another...and you are doing so with your first post.

I had NO need to put the source of the article when I posted the article DIRECTLY....I also told you I did not remember where I ran into the article(Which you have now either ignored or believe that I am lying about). I told you the name to search:

[Q]The main page that everyone links to is Andrew Sullivan...although I do not think that is where I read it. [/Q]

it took quite a bit of searching to get to the actual article. and you would see a TON of pages through a basic google search(, of which I am sure you are capable) that linked to it so I am not sure which one I used. I find it REDICULOUS, that when I post an article and link to the article directly that you want to know more than that. I did not quote from ANYTHING other than the article.

In this case I have posted actual photographs and posted what papers they were from.

I asked politelty for a PM if you had something to say on this. I think YOU may be making it personal in this thread and I hope not, but it seems to me that you have an issue with my postings that would be better left in PM land.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 01:11 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Your claim, by your own admission, is that papers edited this photo due to "media bias" - what bias were you referring to? Bias in favour of terrorism? Bias against the United States?

Your original post was about the claim that "when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs." A completely false allegation often made about the left-wing press is that they are "anti-US" or "try to portray America in a negative light." It's not a claim that's frequently made about the right-wing press, so forgive me for associating your comments with criticism of the left-wing press.
By your own posting I clearly demonstrated a VARIETY of newsprint from the more right and left papers. You ASSUMED I was ignorant about the leanings of the paper.

In General...I do believe the PRESS as a WHOLE is biased towards this administration. But I digress....

They are treading on thin ice....in my opinion....I am not certain we can trust what we see anymore.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 01:20 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I am not certain we can trust what we see anymore.
Dreadlox,

This I completely agree with. I work with Photoshop quite a bit, something I taught myself, and it's so easy these days to doctor photos. It use to be that the written word would have to be approached cautiously, but if you had a photo then you were pretty certain. That's no longer the case.

So what do we have? Will we have to create a new media, a new form of technology that records history without distortion? Is this even possible? Or will we eventually grow into a world that doesn't trust anything anymore?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-19-2004, 01:22 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:24 AM
I don't think *anyone* should "doctor" photos. That being said there is always controversy about graphic photography of something like a terrorist attack. The pictures from Istanbul in November were pretty damn graphic, and there was a ton of controversy in Turkey over the shots. The pictures were blasted as "unnecessary" by many. Perhaps some people felt like they'd better use "discretion" in depicting the terror attack. It may have had nothing to do with politics. Just my purple tuppence's worth.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 01:24 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Thanks to you both for sticking to the discussion. It is concerning.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:02 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Dread,
I have no argument with you on a personal level, as I think you already know. I disagree with you politically, but of course you already know that. Can we both just act like adults and have a civil discussion? Please?

To get back to the topic, while I agree that editing photographs is in general a bad decision, I disagree with the point you made regarding the media being willing to print pictures of American atrocities but not pictures of al-Qaeda atrocities. But I think I already said that in my last post.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:14 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Dread,
I have no argument with you on a personal level, as I think you already know. I disagree with you politically, but of course you already know that. Can we both just act like adults and have a civil discussion? Please?
I am waiting....that's why I politely asked you to PM. Instead you publicly typed innacurately about my attempts to satisfy your curiousity. But hey...its all good.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:16 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
To get back to the topic, while I agree that editing photographs is in general a bad decision, I disagree with the point you made regarding the media being willing to print pictures of American atrocities but not pictures of al-Qaeda atrocities. But I think I already said that in my last post.

Then you agree with the blurring? It is acceptable to doctor photos of attrocities committed by terrorists.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:19 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Re: Media Bias Rears its Head

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Does this bother anyone else? Or is it no big deal




It absolutely is no big deal.





If the head lines in the 3rd and 4th paper said something like;

"Did Spain bring this upon itself?"

or

"Why did this happen?"


It looks like the 3rd and 4th image is one and the same, poorly photo-shopped.

Does one have to see every body part to find it repugnant? I do not.


Was there bias because the photographer did not photograph close-ups of the faces of the corpses?



You find the bias you look for.

This premise in this thread seems silly to me.




Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So what right wing blog did this one come from?

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:24 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
It is acceptable to doctor photos of attrocities committed by terrorists.
Nope. As I said in the previous post "editing photos is in general a bad decision."

I disagreed with the conclusion you drew from the photographs, not with the idea that editing photographs prior to publication is questionable.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:26 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:24 AM
P.S. Dread, I responded to some of your comments over in the thread about the Le Monde article -- I don't want to take this thread too far off-topic so that seemed like the sensible place to reply.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:30 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Re: Re: Media Bias Rears its Head

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
[B]


It absolutely is no big deal.
How can you say it is no big deal? Would it be acceptable to make the photo seem to be more awful by adding in things?

From a historical point of view, researching, ect....why would you find this no big deal?

Don't you think it sets a dangerous precident?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com