Monday, August 07, 2006
All the "News" that's Unfit to Print
I guess that by now, every person that owns a computer is aware of the Reuters controversy. If not you can get a glimpse HERE at the EU Referendum blog.
Its said, ad nasum, that truth is the first casualty of war.
That being said, we expect it from propagandists but we should not have to put up with it from supposedly "neutral" sources.
This poses the rhetorical question; isn't a "news agency" acting as the agent of the enemy when it willfully publishes enemy propaganda? And make no mistake about it, Hezbolla is our sworn enemy and second only to Al Qaeda in the deaths of American citizens.
Now a very real question, Why aren't these people treated as enemy agents and collaborators by the governments of The UK and USA?
The MSM has become a showplace for a never ending stream of Islamo-fascist propaganda in the guise of reporting the "news". Staged events and pictures make the headlines and it seems as though the editors of these purveyors of lies are unaware of what's going on.
Well, EXCUSE ME! I'm not buying it for a minute. The main stream news rags have as much to do with truth as john browns blog. In fact, there is very little difference. They have become so used to unquestioned belief that Reuters even publishes an obviously photoshoped picture and expects us to lap it up, then acts indignant when called on it.
Other doctored photos are popping up now but the real question is, how many other photos have been doctored in a more professional manner, how many staged events are offered as spontaneous events, how much of their "news", is just a load of crap?
When the Abu Grabe photos were originally "leaked", they were bundled with other photos purportedly showing US servicemen raping an Iraqi woman. (That was before I started this blog.) Those photos turned out to be from a Canadian porn site. I was one of the first to point out they were fakes and other people ran with the story.
The "soldiers" carried no weapons, wore black tennis shoes, their "uniforms" were actually Realtree camouflaged hunters garb (not even desert camo), no rank, unit insignia, or name tags or even places where they had been removed. I enlarged the pictures and placed the examples next to real US uniforms. Even with those examples, some people refused to believe that they weren't real.
I have no doubt that those photos would have been included with the naked twister pics if they hadn't been thoroughly squashed beforehand.
As some of you know, I have some small skills in image manipulation. To me, the image is so obviously "shoped", I don't know how any editor could believe it wasn't, even with just a cursory glance.
If that's all the better that Reuters can do in their photo propaganda department, maybe they should hire me!