YOU CAN’T HIDE YOUR LYING EYES
Posted by Rusty Lopez under Media at 6:00 am.We have a saying at work: Figures never lie, but liars figure.
Altered photos. Staged shots. Disingenuous information. Where’s the truth?
Malkin and Hot Air highlight a terrible job at photoshopping and, potentially, additional evidence of the liberally left leaning lunacy of the MSM (Reuters, specifically). Additional smoke plumes, additional buildings, darker smoke. Sigh. All for “the cause,” I suppose. [UPDATE: Hot Air reviews some of the fauxtography in their current issue. And this YouTube video is sickening.]
You know what is really sickening, though? - That such an utterly lousy job of photoshopping made its way onto Reuters.
For a much better example, IMHO, of photoshopping, continue past the fold…
In the first image we see a window with five vertical panes. In the second image the window has four panes. Whither truth?
Take that, Reuters.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not a fan of the American left. However, I really don’t think this particluar photo is an example of anything but a dumb hack job on a photo for the sake of making it look more striking. Since the guy wasn’t any good, he failed at even this. It’s just important to watch out for confirmation bias on the part of us more right-leaning readers.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I think that this particular photo, by itself, is insufficient to warrant an accusation of bias against the MSM. However, if you scan the flurry of posts by Malkin, Hot Air, and LGF (to name but a few) you will find ample evidence for the accusation that bias is influencing activity such as photo alteration and staging.
Also, while one might describe the hack job as an attempt to make the photo “look more striking,” I would describe it as intentional misrepresentation. And it should be noted that the photographer initially stated that he had simply attempted to remove dust marks from the image. I suppose we’re to believe that his dust removal technique just happened to accentuate the apparent destruction occurring?
Perhaps I’ll follow up later this week with a *real* example of how dust marks and scratches are removed from a photograph.
That said, I do agree with you that we all (whether red or blue) be diligent in watching out for confirmation bias on our part.