Re: Ex-President for Sale

On Mar 19, 9:42 am, "Q" <quond...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "DoD" <navyd...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SNIP
Aren't you really asking whether I agree with him? Because I don't
know enough about the Palarabs to agree or not.

If you don't know anything about the Palarabs, then why comment on Carter?

I wasn't commenting on Carter. I was asking questions about him.
There's a difference, although not too many SCJMers are aware of that.

Certainly when you first came to the group, your comments could be
seen as legitimate questions relating to the Carter book. But there
came a point when that was no longer the case. At the start, you were
asked if you had read the existing mainstream media and otehr stories
relating to the book, and you indicated that you had, but had rejected
them out of hand. My timing may be a bit off, but I believe that
means that you rejected out of hand all complaints about the use and
mislabeling of the Ross maps. You've never explained why. In the
following two months, there have been numerous citations to errors in
Carter's book (the Camera list was presented in January), as well as
sources indicating that Carter was anti-Semitic well before
publication of his book. You've again dismissed all of these out of
hand, or indicated that you simply don't have time to consider them,
while continuing your mantra of *no one has yet shown me anything
wrong with the book or Carter* At some point, it became legitimate to
state that people have provided the evidence, and your placing
blinders on yourself is a sufficient showing of your own positions and
beliefs.

I don't think the ganging up by the Camera page writers is fair.

What is not being fair about pointing out deficiencies?

Sometimes, "pointing out deficiencies" really means grousing because
the thesis of a story is different from what somebody would prefer it
to be.

I don't see how that is quite true.

Erlanger is writing about real social problems, and while Camera would
rather pretend they don't exist,

Where do you get that? Camera knows they exist, everyone knows that they
exist. The question is why they exist, and that is where Erlanger was not
forthcoming totally.
SNIP

But this is exactly what you've been asking us to do all along. Show
you errors. Show you bias. But when David does, then its just
grousing, or gangin up on.

FWW, I don't find the Erlanger story particularly anti-Semitic. It
exhibits a deplorable one-sidedness, particularly in its reference to
the beach incident last summer. But to my mind at least, anti-Israeli
bent of a story doesn't always spell anti-Semitism.

It is symptomatic of one of my bigger problems with the NYTImes --
what it chooses, and does not choose -- to cover. When a very small
number of Jews decide that the drinking water in NYC is not kosher, or
burn their Indian wigs, the NYT covers it, including photos. A non-
Jewish friend calls it the *make the Jews look stupid story of the
day* When, for example, Arab youth place a bomb at the door of a
synagogue in Riverdale (in 2000), OTOH, there's virtually no coverage
and (IIRC), no story at all on the trial or verdict. It sometimes
appears to me that the NYT has borrowed Jann Wenner's take on its
motto -- all the news that fits.

Consider another NYT story about Tuvia Grossman. At worst that
one was antisemitic,

There's no way it was antisemitic. It was careless and it an example
of what happens when papers rely on freelance photographers who
haven't correctly identified the people in their pictures. The Times
has its own photographers, but this photo was an AP photo, and the
story -- even though it appeared in the Times -- may well have been an
AP story as well.

But, but, aren't you the same Quond who rather imperiously informed me
that newspapers do a stellar job of fact-checking. That
notwithstanding their extremely tight deadlines relating to ongong
events, no editor would ever -- ever - allow an item to go to print
unless s/he was absolutely, positively convinced of its accuracy.
This item, OTOH, seems to me to be patently false. The police
officer's stick does not appear to be bloody. Worse yet, there's a
*gas station* in the background. What level of fact checking would be
required to indicate that there is no gas station oh the Temple
Mount? The best you could say of this is shoddy.

But the error is compounded by the refusal to admit error. Well aware
of what the photo actually showed, the Times still tried to avoid it.
Only when pushed did it admit error.

SNIP
Have you ever read honestreporting.com on the NY Times?

I don't read it, no. Blogs that bash newspapers give me a headache.
Most of them are crap, written by people who failed to get jobs at the
papers they have chosen as their targets.

Now I'm really getting dizzy. First its how well the newspapers fact
check, but can't be expected to notice what is a facially apparent
problem with a photo. Now its that notwithstanding literally MONTHS
of your stating that nothing anyone here says about Carter can be
trusted because we haven't read hos book (although people have read
critiques of his work, studied lists of his errors, studied his
history, etc). NOW, OTOH, its Ok for you to reject everything that
cites like Honest Reporting say WITHOUT EVEN READING THEM. And why,
we ask. Because they are *written by people who failed to get jobs at
the papers ...* (presumably unlike *fine reporters* like Jayson
Blair). What basis do you have for this?

The times regulary
does dishonest things... here is just one example.
SNIP
Different papers will sometimes have variations on quotes because the
reporters at the news conferences are relying on their notes, rather
than tape recordings. Perhaps it was the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz
that got it wrong. In any case, the NY Times version was clearly a
paraphrase -- rather than a direct quote -- so choosing the less
extreme, emotive word is acceptable.

No, its not. This is a war of rhetoric. The PalArabs attempt to give
legitimacy to their cause, and to their actions, by cloking them in
acceptable terms like *militancy* Its not terrorism to walk into a
Passover seder to and blow up people who are peacefully assembled; its
*militancy* Its not terrorism to walk into a pizza shop, search for
tables with a lot of kids, lean down for best effect, then blow
yourself up, taking with you people whose only crime is apparently
wanting to have a slice; that's militancy. Stating that Israeli
officials would use that term to describe terrorist acts is indeed
changing the entire gist of the comment.

SNIP
I'm not surprised
that the person you mention thinks the Times alters photographs,
however.

I mentioned that the idea was being tossed around. Now you are
misrepresenting what I said.

No. I read her post. She said she thought the Times picture had been
photoshopped. Again, it was not one of the Times's own pictures, it
was purchased from Getty, which weakens its provenance. But why would
the Times or anybody else photoshop that picture? What does the
theoretically photoshopped picture show that the original would not
have shown? If anything, the picture was cropped and then enlarged.

Actually, she wondered if it had been, and stated that she hated to
sound like a conspircacy website. While I don't think the photo was
substantially altered in this case, I see her point. Look at the leg
of the boy. The light appears to come from a source that would not
be available in the photo. His shoe appears too much in focus given
the background focus. Even the sling he's using in lit by an ethereal
light. Fabulous photo, assuming its real.

Why photoshop? To create that fabulous photo that doesn't really
exist. To show the boy against a ravaged and burning background that
didn't really exist. to get rid of elements that wouldn't support the
story that you're teling, or that would merely be distracting. Or any
one of a thousand more reasons.
SNIP
Don't most readers of SCJM prefer to think for

themselves?

I would assume so, at least my favorite reads here seem to be very
thoughtful.

Nevermind. Don't answer that. -- Q

So do you think that everyone here follows some sort of script or
something?

Quite a few people seem to respond to issues in a knee-jerk sort of
way -- that's not exactly like having a script, which suggests that
somebody is telling them what to write. .

I think that the positions a lot of people take are predictable based
on my knowledge of them. But I only see one knee jerking in the group
right now.

Karen Elizabeth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (RSPolitixW) Bush "Potty Note" Photoshoped...
    ... mr. photographer" is in order. ... > enhanced with a photoshop program according to Reuters. ... > In response to the attention the photo is getting, ... > in London released a two-sentence statement about the picture: ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Interpolation - finally an example in perspective
    ... > passed over his comments but he claimed to be a published photographer ... > picture, much less having one from him on their cover. ... not as a photo of a photo but as the up sampled image. ... I will also put this forward to the PhotoShop gurus in the group to ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Ex-President for Sale
    ... I wasn't commenting on Carter. ... has its own photographers, but this photo was an AP photo, and the ... She said she thought the Times picture had been ... the Times or anybody else photoshop that picture? ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Copying Photos from PPT
    ... XP with Powerpoint 2003 and Photoshop v6 and when I copy ... I read that one fix is to copy the picture into MS Photo ...
    (microsoft.public.powerpoint)
  • Re: ALLEN and/or SAWFORD- Leicester area Looking for a home for some old photos
    ... also a photo card but with no picture left. ... The writing was stuck to the picture of Private Allen and his picture is ... I also researched that he was born 2nd quarter 1877 in Leicester and married ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
Loading