Soccer Mom: Unplugged

raves, rants, reviews and recounts of life in middle America

2006/8/11

Photofraud exposed: Reading between the pixels

@ 06:30 AM (28 months, 6 days ago)

It's all over the blogs.  The media is playing God with the facts about the middle east conflict but my guess is that average Americans have no idea how manipulated the news is.  With photographers earning cash bonuses for producing the best war pics, there is plenty of apolitical motivation for Jason Blair shutterbugging.  Not to mention the liberal anti-American (aka anti-Israel) mindset that appears to be a job requirement in the MSM...

Check out this concise expose by aish.com

 

Comment(s) »

  1. I think the media manipulation goes on both sides - t.v news and radio seems 90% conservative to me (even though it's always claimed to be opposite)and I don't believe a word they tell me.

    Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/11 @ 07:00 AM — (Reply)

  2. I think the way you perceive it belies your natural bias. I mean that as a general truth - people tend to hear the news, compare it with their personal experience (either consciously or unconsciously) and then form an opinion about its veracity/slant.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/08/11 @ 07:45 AM — (Reply)

  3. have you seen Mr. Green Helmet Cate?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/11 @ 09:49 AM — (Reply)

  4. nevermind I see your post.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/11 @ 09:49 AM — (Reply)

  5. photofraud is not new, it used to be called trick photography

    Comment by jim— 2006/08/11 @ 10:48 AM — (Reply)

  6. AKA fraud, gross misrepresentation, deceit...

    But you're right, it's been around since before Napoleon had his portrait painted as if he were 6 inches taller than he really was :lol:

    Comment by Cate— 2006/08/11 @ 01:08 PM — (Reply)

  7. Do you mean to say that in real life Napoleon was 0"?

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/11 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)

  8. Napolean had a Napolean complex.

    Comment by elmers brother— 2006/08/12 @ 09:22 AM — (Reply)

  9. I wonder what they called it before Napoleon?

    Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/13 @ 02:17 PM — (Reply)

  10. They called it an "albert" complex.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/13 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)

  11. What was that again about "Debating liberal left wing democrats into sawdust"?

    Comment by albert— 2006/08/13 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)

  12. Lay off the booze Albert and go to bed.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/13 @ 07:57 PM — (Reply)

  13. Whatever you say, "Barry G."

    Comment by albert— 2006/08/13 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)

  14. pgcbkpjt http://udkslyzr.com ldsrtcte qdrubxnj nybdddbx [URL=http://ixuixhte.com]imbwveqc[/URL]

    Comment by irdlzeyh— 2007/09/09 @ 06:39 AM — (Reply)

  15. Hey Cate,

    For more examples, check out this link. Digital manipulation is all over the place, and its not always "anti-American (aka anti-Israel mindset". By the way... when, exactly, did Israel become the 51st state? Did I miss that in the news? Or is it impossible to oppose any Israeli policy without being accused of an "anti-American" mindset?

    If you're upset about digital manipulation, then what do you think about staged photos (like the toppling of Saddam's statue), misleading photos (like Bush with a fake turkey for the troops), intentionally deceptive photos (covering boxes labelled "Made in China" with "Made in the U.S.A." stickers) or just plain old photo-ops engaged in by all politicians.

    Photojournalism has become little more than a string of Potemkin villages shown to the public.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/08/17 @ 10:59 AM — (Reply)

  16. Michael,
    I know about photo manipulation well - my husband taught the PSYOP course at Ft. Bragg and those special ops guys learn all about how to appeal to their target audiences through the media.

    You will recall however, that the fake turkey incident made international headlines (because it was fake). And it was clearly a photo-op that was not intended to impact public policy. A ratings boost perhaps but not policy.

    So long as photo-ops are recognizeable as such, I don't think there is a problem. They deception occurs when photographers and reporters try to create the news instead of report it.

    As for Israeli statehood, that's a straw dog. I don't see Israeli policy as inherently in our best interest or as inherently pro-American but I do see the current surge of anti-Israeli (pro-Hezbollah) bias as very unAmerican. Why? Because those same people funding Hezbollah and equipping suicide bombers are gathering in large numbers shouting "Death to America". They aren't waving anti-Ethiopian banners or chanting death wishes about Sweden, bud.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/08/17 @ 06:18 PM — (Reply)

  17. Cate,

    If you already knew about basic PSYOPs, then your complaint about the media kinda rings hollow. Or is manipulating the media okay if it's on your side of the spectrum?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/08/18 @ 10:02 AM — (Reply)

  18. I'm sorry, weren't you the one who described my broad brushing as simplistic?

    One of the guiding principles of Army Psyop is to put out TRUTHFUL products. Basically public service announcements geared to reach people through their cultural language.

    Some examples:

    Mine awareness commercials using popular music in Bosnia also mine awareness comic books to reach children.

    Leaflets using Serbian/Muslim imagery to explain the relocation process.

    Leaflets using common Iraqi/Arab symbols to warn of upcoming military strikes.

    Any good PSYOP guy will tell you that your message must be true to be believable, otherwise your subsequent messages will all be suspect.

    Also keep in mind that Army guys are not paid based on how many leaflets they sell - their messages are more like free public service announcements. Yes, they are designed to change human behavior, much like those commercials that tell us to talk to our kids about smoking. Soldiers receive no monetary gain and their missions are not shortened by a successful radio commercial.

    The comparison between military psyop and photos for hire is what rings hollow.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/08/18 @ 12:21 PM — (Reply)

  19. The comparison between military psyop and photos for hire is what rings hollow.


    But why??

    A basic rule to photojournalism is that in the interest of credibility, photographs should not misrepresent the truth. Photographs which have been set up in advance, or manipulated afterwards to alter the subject matter are not acceptable photojournalism.

    How is this different from Psyop?

    We've both brought up samples of what is bad/unacceptable photojournalism, and we can agree on that. Are there no instances of bad/unacceptable Psyop? The fact that there is a definition of "good" clearly suggests that there are, or at least have been, times when TRUTHFUL has not been the prime motivation.

    Of course, you're right- there is financial incentive for dramatic images, and generally there is far less heirarchy in journalism than in the military. Those two factors may lead to more instances of individual malfeasance, like Photoshopped smoke (which could be poor image cleanup) or staged pix with Mr.GreenHat (clearly unacceptable).

    But those same factors suggest that there isn't quite the intentional misguidance on an institutional level for journalism. Rather, these are individuals either out to convey a message, or just as likely, out to earn the most bucks they can, who manage to slip one past the news corporations.

    Of course most of Psyop work is beneficial, and most of it is from a public service standpoint, and my apologies if I gave the impression I thought otherwise. Not existing for profit's sake, and having a very heirarchical structure, there is less motivation for malfeasance, and more institutional control against it developing.

    These days, anytime anyone puts forward a news story, an image, a video feed, the smart citizen will look beyond the store-front, and sadly, that doesn't matter if the source is the media, the government or anyone. There is always a purpose, be it profit or propaganda. That's all that I'm saying.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/08/18 @ 01:53 PM — (Reply)

  20. Good points, Michael. There is indeed always a point. I think, for me, that I would be less disturbed with the photoshopping and yellow journalism if we lived in a journalistic age like pre-Civil war US, where papers were well known for their political slant and such was acknowledged openly.

    If today's media would abandon the pretense of objectivity, I would have much less of an 'issue'.

    Another key difference b/w psyops and reuters: psyop products are generally attributed (i.e. mine awareness commercials identified as coming from IFOR - the nato force in Sarajevo). Reuters doesn't identify it's bias.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/08/18 @ 06:42 PM — (Reply)



  21. Reuters doesn't identify it's bias.


    And Fox News does? :grin:

    Comment by Michael— 2006/08/18 @ 10:11 PM — (Reply)

  22. I think the commentators are pretty transparent on Fox. The whole fair and balanced business is (imho at least) more a reference to the fact that both sides are given air time rather than that there is commentator neutrality. (Like watching Donahue :lol: ROTFLMBO)

    I slammed Fox last night... did you miss it?

    Comment by Cate— 2006/08/19 @ 04:36 AM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment


:mrgreen: :neutral: :twisted: :arrow: :shock: :smile: :???: :cool: :evil: :grin: :idea: :oops: :razz: :roll: :wink: :cry: :eek: :lol: :mad: :sad: :!: :?:

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image: CAPTCHA
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

  • Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
  • Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
  • The line and paragraph breaks automatically