Well, you do have a burden of proof. As I have state earlier, no one believed anything other than the soldier was injured by the people on the ship, so exactly how does this support Palestinans? No we all know stuuf. Show clear, objective, sound reasoning and support. That is your challenge.What proof is there that a defender of this type of bias would accept? None I suspect.
j-mac
Umm...... Swaying public opinion... I thought you were capable of independent thought. Removing a pool of blood off of a railing but keeping the railing there does not accomplish the claims of "centering the victim as the focus of the photo" Why else can we only see the things edited out as politically damning to the "humanitarian" group. Why are all things removed either a positive for those against Israel, or negative editing for Israel, along with some crappy reporting of the facts?Yet you STILL have to give us the "why." What on earth does Reuters have to gain by doing this intentionally?
Intentionally ignoring the key word won't get you anywhere in this debate. I stated "COMBAT" knife. This isn't a kitchen knife, its a ****ing combat knife. Two different things. You don't cut a steak with a combat knife, its impracticle.I can think of ten thousand different uses for a knife beyond putting the pointy end into someone else.
Of course they cracked down, thats what any "legitimate" news source is expected to do. They don't want to be viewed as a biased news source, they want to be a biased news source without being believed to be one, so they can change someone's opinion. If people KNOW they are an outlet for the Palestinian struggle, then they aren't going to take Reuters seriously. If Reuters does its best to maintain an image of a "fair and balanced" news source while slipping in little tidbits of subtle falsification and one sided stories then they might change some folks opinions.Except when it happened, Reuters cracked down instantly on the people responsible, fired them, and apologized. If you're trying to subtly influence public opinion via Photoshop, apologizing and publically firing the responsible parties is a pretty crappy way to do it.
And again, what in the name of fresh of holy **** does Reuters stand to gain from doing this? Why do they care?
What does Reuters gain by taking a side and can you prove this?What? Are you kidding? The ideology is clear in that these individuals working for the news service are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
So you got nothing but paranoid ranting, gotcha.What proof is there that a defender of this type of bias would accept? None I suspect.
What does Reuters have to gain by influencing public opinion? Their business doesnt depend on public opinion; it depends on having a good record, which they have.Umm...... Swaying public opinion... I thought you were capable of independent thought. Removing a pool of blood off of a railing but keeping the railing there does not accomplish the claims of "centering the victim as the focus of the photo" Why else can we only see the things edited out as politically damning to the "humanitarian" group. Why are all things removed either a positive for those against Israel, or negative editing for Israel, along with some crappy reporting of the facts?
It is if you can get a steak knife, but if you happen to be somewhere that's just too darn far from your local Williams-Sonoma, a combat knife can be put to many different uses aside from stabbing people.Intentionally ignoring the key word won't get you anywhere in this debate. I stated "COMBAT" knife. This isn't a kitchen knife, its a ****ing combat knife. Two different things. You don't cut a steak with a combat knife, its impracticle.
Proof?Of course they cracked down, thats what any "legitimate" news source is expected to do. They don't want to be viewed as a biased news source, they want to be a biased news source without being believed to be one, so they can change someone's opinion. If people KNOW they are an outlet for the Palestinian struggle, then they aren't going to take Reuters seriously. If Reuters does its best to maintain an image of a "fair and balanced" news source while slipping in little tidbits of subtle falsification and one sided stories then they might change some folks opinions.
Exactly. Compare that to Stephen Hayes who still has a job:
Hayes is well known for his writings postulating an operational relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. (See Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations). He ended one of his articles by this sentence: "...there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."[2]
Hayes authored a book on this subject entitled: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America [ISBN 0-06-074673-4].
A major source for the articles and book was a leaked memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the U.S. Congress on 27 October 2003.[3]
The DOD issued a statement about the Feith Memo on Nov 15, 2003, which included the following[4]
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
.
.
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
Stephen F. Hayes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
t
........
What does Reuters gain by taking a side and can you prove this?
So you got nothing but paranoid ranting, gotcha.
Boo said:Well, you do have a burden of proof. As I have state earlier, no one believed anything other than the soldier was injured by the people on the ship, so exactly how does this support Palestinans? No we all know stuuf. Show clear, objective, sound reasoning and support. That is your challenge.
Not much. The comment was about media accountability. Seems some conservatives only want accountability for things they disagree with or don't like.
Nonsense. The only reason to attack Hayes when we are talking about Reuters cropping photos, is to deflect, and distract. That you don't agree with Hayes is well known, but then again I don't agree with Daily KOS so we're even.
j-mac
Well, allow me to turn it around....I am not saying that Reuters is the Huff Post or anything, just that their sympathies of some of the Photogs, and Editors that they employ are with a side in the fight. For that their own credibility is at stake with a segment of the population they are supposed to serve. To dismiss any acknowledgment of that, is to be blatant in ones own bias.
j-mac
To what? Quit screwing around and either cop to the fact that you've got nothing to base this on or quit wasting my time.Access.
Then demonstrate itNo, I have common sense, and the ability to read.
Again, nonsense. Do you or don't you care when conservatives are dishonest?
And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim BTW.
In that I see your assumptions, largely informed by your bias.
But the fact is you have not proven or even supported your claim. Remove your assumptions, and objectively try and support your claim.
To what? Quit screwing around and either cop to the fact that you've got nothing to base this on or quit wasting my time.
When someone relegates to personal insults, it's almost an assured assumption to make that they are not approaching a discussion from a solid position of strength and that this is a failing they are aware of and attempt to compensate for by namecalling and insults to detract from the weakness of their position.Wasting your time? how about you get off the couch, come up out of the basement, clean and shave, and put on something other than your Scooby Doo Footy PJ's and we can talk about wasting time.....? :mrgreen:
Seriously man, your on a message board, it is all about wasting time.
When someone relegates to personal insults, it's almost an assured assumption to make that they are not approaching a discussion from a solid position of strength and that this is a failing they are aware of and attempt to compensate for by namecalling and insults to detract from the weakness of their position.
Feel free to come back when you have an actual point.
Sorry, I lost all my mind reading powers. I traded them in for a kick-ass pair of speakers set into my skull.Im sorry, I think he ASSumed you were capable of reading what he posted "Access" and determining what he meant.
Reuters already gets that information, they dont need to buy it with Photoshop. You may not realize this but most of the "breaking news" that comes out on FOX or CNN or MSNBC usually comes from Reuters first. Reuters and the AP are the two biggest sources of news on the planet and Reuters doesnt have to curry favor to get a report.Its clear he is talking about Reuters getting access to the information that can be obtained from the IHH side of the struggle as long as they agree to report for them, this way Reuters gets stories with info that other news sources get, and the IHH gets some of their information put out there under the guise of a "credible" news source.
Sorry, I lost all my mind reading powers. I traded them in for a kick-ass pair of speakers set into my skull.
Throwing out a single word that explains nothing does exactly that, it explains nothing.
Reuters already gets that information, they dont need to buy it with Photoshop. You may not realize this but most of the "breaking news" that comes out on FOX or CNN or MSNBC usually comes from Reuters first. Reuters and the AP are the two biggest sources of news on the planet and Reuters doesnt have to curry favor to get a report.
Then that had to be the most pointless ****ing assertion I've ever seen. Either you can demonstrate they have something to gain, or you cant.Maybe... maybe they don't. Neither you nor I can turn a statement as such into fact.
Then that had to be the most pointless ****ing assertion I've ever seen. Either you can demonstrate they have something to gain, or you cant.
Its apparently working.
An assertion you cant back up and is therefore worthless.Im still going with my original assertion.
And yet you cant actually prove that.They want to sway the public Opinion to match the political ideologies that they wish to see the majority.
An assertion you cant back up and is therefore worthless.
And yet you cant actually prove that.
I think you may be projecting here. I value honesty, which is why I get my news from FOX among others.:2razz:
And yours are not.......HA!
give me the parameters. What is it that you would accept as proof of the claim that Reuters is Pro Hamas/Hezi?
j-mac
An assertion you cant back up and is therefore worthless.
And yet you cant actually prove that.
I dont need to, you made the assertion so its your job to back it up.And you can back up anything you've said?
Translation- You have no proof.Fact of the matter is nothing I could find to back up what Ive said would be accepted by mouth foaming Palestine/Terrorist supporting folks like yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?