Slashdot Mirror

Here are a couple links about it.

Which photographs?

I would start with this:
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/08/ al_ap_at_it_aga.html/
and
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2211 6_Still_More_Photo_Staging_Identified&only/

Then you can read about the Red Cross Ambulance Incident here:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Additional staged incidents here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2212 3_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only/

How is Adobe going to find other faked war photos like these?

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r1891896 384.jpg
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r3577351 291.jpg

or the woman who shows up to cry over every and all bombed buildings in Reuters' world

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/beirutwo man2.jpg

Source - http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

How is Adobe going to find other faked war photos like these?

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r1891896 384.jpg
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r3577351 291.jpg

or the woman who shows up to cry over every and all bombed buildings in Reuters' world

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/beirutwo man2.jpg

Source - http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

How is Adobe going to find other faked war photos like these?

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r1891896 384.jpg
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r3577351 291.jpg

or the woman who shows up to cry over every and all bombed buildings in Reuters' world

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/beirutwo man2.jpg

Source - http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

How is Adobe going to find other faked war photos like these?

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r1891896 384.jpg
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r3577351 291.jpg

or the woman who shows up to cry over every and all bombed buildings in Reuters' world

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/beirutwo man2.jpg

Source - http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Many thanks to the north east and north west!
So while the people in a state like Kansas focus all their attention on debating whether or not evolution should be taught in science classes, the people in states like Maine, Vermont, and Washington are defending their freedoms.

So where does Pennsylvania fit in there?

As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states.

Patently absurd. For what it's worth, I've seen a few articles trying to relate states' I.Q.s to voting records and/or political leanings, and it's all very speculative. I've linked a couple of them below. The first has been largely acknowledged as a fabrication, the second attempts to accomplish what the first promised. Both are operating shaky ground in terms of correlation and causation, as are you my friend.

So, defend yourself. Let's see how you back up your assertions.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_sta te/

Your statement illustrates the kind of sickness that pervades conservative thought. You deny your own faults while projecting them onto everyone around you.

I'm sorry, I have a problem with much of you comment, specifically, this part:
Republicans used to be the ones who were for... fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations.

Funny, it's Democrats who keep telling me I can't smoke in a restaurant... work... within 50 feet of a door... in a bar... soon to be in my car... on the sidewalk... and finally, in my own home. It's funny how when there is an anti-war protest, it's a contest to see who can be the most radical, but when there is a pro-life protest, it's a contest to see who can offend or violently prevent the protest from taking place. Why is it that the Democrats, champions of civil rights as they are, has elevated a former KKK leader to be third in line for the Presidency (here, last paragraph)?

Also, I'm not a large corporation, but I got a tax cut in 2001 because I have a job. If you didn't get your's, I suggest you stop posting here and start looking for work!

Back ON Topic:
Limiting liberties during wartime is nothing new. See this page for a few examples. By the way, Roosevelt was a Democrat.

So, please, don't act like this is a Republican issue and don't be so ignorant as to assume that any of these limitations are going to be permanent. We got rights back after the Revolutionary war, the civil war, WWI, WWII, we'll get whatever is lost after this war as well.

Given the numerous problems Reuters has had with its own Middle East reporting, what controls are they going to put in place to ensure that these Citizen Journalists aren't feeding them fake pictures?

Crow T. Trollbot

People are fed up with the angry, hateful, exclusive tone of the Republicans.

Project much?

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
-- Howard Dean, Democrat Party chairman

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
-- Markos Zuniga, Daily Kos

"[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
-- Nina Totenberg, PBS

"I hope [Clarence Thomas'] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
-- Julianne Malveaux, USA Today

"This President is never gonna do the right thing. I think somewhere deep down inside him he takes a lot of joy about losing people, if he thinks they vote Democrat or if he thinks they're poor, or if he thinks they're in a blue state, whatever his reasons are not to rescue those people who are (planning?) for their safety."
-- Randi Rhodes, Air America Radio

Those are just what I was able to dig up in a minute or two of googling. The first one, I didn't even have to look up. You could also just check out the Zombietime archives, or pick up Michelle Malkin's Unhinged for more examples.

Oh really ?

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruptio n-of-media.html

Please explain how these 2 things never made it into the debate ...

So is the US military reacting to media bias that hurts morale while simultaneously building the enemies will to fight? You don't think MoveOn.org or Worldnetdaily.com aren't exaggerating their diametrically opposed points of view until the truth becomes indistinguishable from outright lies? What is sad is the the US military feels the need to do this. And probably do need to since the truth as long since been discarded.

Try makeing any untoward comments about your almighty presedent, and how to depose him (violently or otherwise) and then see where your constitution gets you....

You can find examples of plenty of "untoward comments" about Bush, him being burnt in effigy, comparisons between him and Hitler and just about everything short of, "ok, this is how we're going to kill the President" on this site.

Yes, if you're part of a group advocating violence the police and FBI will be listening in on you. But people say this stuff in the US and no one locks them up for it. We're better than you in that regard, that's just the plain truth.

And after all the wailing about the infamous Patriot Act, it hasn't affected even the nuttiest Bezerkley moonbats. That's largely because protecting free speech is an engrained part of the culture of US law enforcement. So even if other countries *did* adopt similar protections for speech, you'd find that it would still be better protected in the US.)

http://www.zombietime.com/

You'll find that they're ignored. Sorry to burst your bubble.....

It might be useful For stock photography galleries and the like. And news bureaus. At least one of the recent Reuters "fauxtography" scandal photos wasn't taken where it was claimed to have been.

Though I withhold judgement until some confirmation comes.

As if there's such a thing as real news?

Free speech go to hell. Why don't you get it?

My favorite painting of mohammed is by Salvador Dalí

Free speech go to hell. Why don't you get it?

My favorite painting of mohammed is by Salvador Dalí

And don't forget equal rights for women also, that really pisses these islamic terrosists off also. Oh, and freedom of speach, making jokes about murderers like mohammed sends them frothing at the mouth also.

And before anyone calls me culturally insensitive, I have a simple rule - I don't respect any culture that does not give equal rights and protections to people irregardless of their sex, race, and age. Get rid of the burqa, and the honour killings, and then feel free to criticize me.

I do really love to see all of these Arab leaders begging for C. Rice to come save them from Israel though. I notice she tends to wear skirts to the meetings - really makes me happy!

Here's an interesting analysis of a selective framing incident.

You definitely get noticed, but the end result is severe tire damage to your cause. Take a look at the Zombie Hall of Shame for photos of actual protesters in action. Imagine, if you will, how much permanent damage this guy did for the anti-war effort.

You definitely get noticed, but the end result is severe tire damage to your cause. Take a look at the Zombie Hall of Shame for photos of actual protesters in action. Imagine, if you will, how much permanent damage this guy did for the anti-war effort.

What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?

What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?

So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.

The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.

Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.

I'll grant you that the invocation of war powers with regard to the "War on Terrorism" is a subjective decision and a slippery slope, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights. Similarly, if the threat of extraterrestrial invasion (I assume that's what you mean: "take me to your leader"-aliens) were realistic, the same would apply. Obviously, the third was just thrown in to be ridiculous, so no, because republicans losing power does not constitute a threat to national survival like the first two examples.

The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process?

I'll refer you to my original post. What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair? No. But such acts of survival, while failing our strictest Western ideals, are just as legitimate as, for example, killing in personal self-defense.

ush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?

Now you're just being ridiculous. There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo? Why are all these people able to so publicly... um.. . express themselves?

-Grym

From TFA
Violations of the privacy of sources, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations kept the United States (22nd) away from the top of the list.

So your point (and RSF, cleverly trading on the credibility of the MSF organization) is to say that the US isn't as "free" a press system because the press has in many ways arrayed itself directly AGAINST not "the government", but "the part of the government that we don't like politically"?

I don't find these measurements persuasive, unless they are ALSO accompanied by some sort of measurement of the objectivity of the same press.
- privacy of sources? Would this be the sources that fed CBS news the blatantly false documents about Bush's NG service? Or would this be the source that 'revealed' the the administration was trying to destroy Joe Wilson (disregarding that his wife pulled strings to get his assignment, his testimony to the BIpartisan investigative committee was found to be self-contradictory, and the conclusions in his 'report' (used to pimp his book and to get him a job in the Kerry campaign) implausable and unsupportable?
- press visas, I don't know anything about this issue.
- the arrest of journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations? Perhaps you'd like to check out http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_20 05/anatomy_of_a_photograph/ to see how "neutral" the press coverage in the US is.

Please. The press cannot claim their 'inalienable rights' as journalists if they simultaneously act as advocates for a political viewpoint....that's not journalism, that's demagoguery.

You really don't know what you are talking about. So you are no longer under the mistaken impression that these were the first drawings of mohammed - there are plenty of examples from muslim artists.

Just so you are not under the mistaken impression that these were the first drawings of mohammed - there are plenty of examples from muslim artists.

Exactly. Over a man who was illiterate and got his first money by marrying the widow of his dead boss.

You can see the cartoons here. I like the picture of a protester against the Freedom of Speach in London with a sign that read "Freedom Go To Hell". Here are other protestors and a nonviolent response.

Not like these were the first drawings of the man either.

Buy Danish!

If you want examples, see here, and it's not even photoshopped, just cropped to remove the context. "Such tactics -- in the no-man's-land between ethical and unethical -- are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along."

Why use a UAV when you can just walk amoung the protesters and take pictures. Besides... it is quite entertaining to sane people.

We don't need to use no stinkin' PDFs to keep track of those pinko commies. They tend to be rather easy to keep an eye on...

http://www.zombietime.com/churchill_in_bay_area/ch urchill_sf_anarchist_bookfair_march_26_2005/156-56 35_IMG.JPG