kelpdiver 2 #1 November 21, 2008 http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13500 DoD adds American flag to the backdrop of picture of 4 star general. Though far less significant than the Iranian missile launch, or the North Korean our-leader-is-alive-and-well frauds, it's still junior varsity horseshit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 722 #2 November 21, 2008 and yet somehow, the North Koreans and the Iranians did a significantly better job! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #3 November 21, 2008 QuoteDoD adds American flag to the backdrop of picture of 4 star general. So what? Why do you think this is some kind of fraud or deception? Are four-star generals never normally seen around flags or something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #4 November 21, 2008 I don't see how this is a big deal? So they put a flag in the background? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #5 November 21, 2008 QuoteMother should I trust the government."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #6 November 21, 2008 +1.... must be a very slow news day. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LOSTandCRAZY 0 #7 November 21, 2008 Wow. Maybe I can get them to insert a chick with really big titties into my bedroom. Wait.... That happened already. Damn."Get these balls!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 November 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteDoD adds American flag to the backdrop of picture of 4 star general. So what? Why do you think this is some kind of fraud or deception? Are four-star generals never normally seen around flags or something? That's not the point at all. The point is that AP has been stung by doctored photos before and now has a well known zero-tolerance policy in place; fuck with a photo before submission and they don't run it and might never accept a submission from you again. The DoD KNOWS this and submitted a photo that had been dramatically altered. This is simply unacceptable. It has nothing to do with the DoD per se, but rather the practice of altering photos. When the ONLY thing your company really has going for it is the credibility of its product, you tend to be very protective of it. People HAVE to know that photos distributed by AP have not been altered. They can't make exceptions.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 November 21, 2008 QuoteI don't see how this is a big deal? So they put a flag in the background? The big deal, as Quade, writes, is that they are submitting fake photographs. The ability to easily falsify evidence that less than 20 years ago we would presume to be the most reliable is a huge problem. If the DoD wanted to make sure there was a flag behind the 4 star general, they should have put a flag there. I'm sure one was nearby. Now if you want to argue that the military should use fake photography for propaganda purposes like the North Koreans, fine, but then a news agency like the AP will not be able to use their material. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 November 21, 2008 QuoteThe point is that AP has been stung by doctored photos before and now has a well known zero-tolerance policy in place; fuck with a photo before submission and they don't run it and might never accept a submission from you again. The DoD KNOWS this and submitted a photo that had been dramatically altered... I just don't see the big deal. I don't this inclusion of a flag as a "dramatic alteration". It didn't do anything to falsely represent the general. She's still who she is in the photo. They didn't try to make her look more dark and disturbing, piloting a stealth bomber with one hand tied behind her back, or leaping tall buildings in a single bound. I would only object to alteration of photos if it changes the facts or perception of what is portrayed. The presence or absence of a flag next to a posed photo of a general is irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #11 November 21, 2008 This wasn't a photo that was submitted as evidence. Why should be treated as evidence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #12 November 21, 2008 > I don't this inclusion of a flag as a "dramatic alteration". I can only imagine how loudly you would be screaming about the lying liberal press if they had photoshopped a flag pin onto Obama's jacket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #13 November 21, 2008 Quote> I don't this inclusion of a flag as a "dramatic alteration". I can only imagine how loudly you would be screaming about the lying liberal press if they had photoshopped a flag pin onto Obama's jacket. He refuses to wear one. Altering the photo would be lying. I'm sure the General has no problem being around flags. That said, I actually agree with quade. John is right; it's not a big deal by itself. The problem is that it opens the door for questions like, "If you lied about something simple like this, then what else are you lying about?" Like I said, I don't think it's a big deal but the perception it sends to the public is not good. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 November 22, 2008 Quote I would only object to alteration of photos if it changes the facts or perception of what is portrayed. On the line of battle in the debate over photoshop ethics, that is the middle ground. The problem is that the idea of changing the perception is not an objective measure. The first case I recall was back in 1994 when one of the weeklies ran a cover with Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan skating on the ice. Two separate shots were combined, they were never on the ice at the same time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #15 November 22, 2008 >He refuses to wear one. A lie. See below. > Altering the photo would be lying. Since he has in fact worn one, it would be no more a lie than what the Pentagon did for this picture. You have basically proven my point - thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #16 November 22, 2008 Quote>He refuses to wear one. A lie. See below. > Altering the photo would be lying. Since he has in fact worn one, it would be no more a lie than what the Pentagon did for this picture. You have basically proven my point - thank you. Actually, I said I agree with quade in the first place. If it makes you feel clever then, ok. Edited: What does the discussion of the DoD picture have to do with bi-partisan politics anyway? The argrument is over a picture put out by an organization with no political affiliation of a person who cannot back either party. I fail to see why you pitted conservatives vs liberals with the example of Obama. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #17 November 22, 2008 > I said I agree with quade in the first place. No argument there. Just pointing out your error. >What does the discussion of the DoD picture have to do with bi-partisan >politics anyway? Nothing. > I fail to see why you pitted conservatives vs liberals with the example > of Obama. That's because you did not see it. I used one of JohnRich's knee-jerk issues to illustrate why it was a problem for a news organization to knowingly print altered photographs. (I note that your knee jerked the same way.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #18 November 22, 2008 Quote If the DoD wanted to make sure there was a flag behind the 4 star general, they should have put a flag there. I'm sure one was nearby. This I can agree with. How there isn't a file photo in front of the flag is beyond me. Every senior officer shown in a chain-of-command has the soldier in uniform, in front of the nation's or unit's colors. As for the alteration...I think AP is being a bit extreme, and for DoD public affairs, just show both pics and express which one they would like printed (maybe the General couldn't get to the photographer in time or whatever), AP doesn't like it, no photo...simple. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #19 November 22, 2008 Quote I would only object to alteration of photos if it changes the facts or perception of what is portrayed. The presence or absence of a flag next to a posed photo of a general is irrelevant. If the alteration was NOT intended to alter the perception of what was portrayed, why did DoD go to the bother of doing it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #20 November 22, 2008 QuoteQuote I would only object to alteration of photos if it changes the facts or perception of what is portrayed. The presence or absence of a flag next to a posed photo of a general is irrelevant. If the alteration was NOT intended to alter the perception of what was portrayed, why did DoD go to the bother of doing it? Semantic gruel. Photographers insert backdrops into portraits all the time. Why did the DoD do it? To make it look nice. No more insidious reason than that. Big fucking deal. End of story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #21 November 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I would only object to alteration of photos if it changes the facts or perception of what is portrayed. The presence or absence of a flag next to a posed photo of a general is irrelevant. If the alteration was NOT intended to alter the perception of what was portrayed, why did DoD go to the bother of doing it? Semantic gruel. Photographers insert backdrops into portraits all the time. Why did the DoD do it? To make it look nice. No more insidious reason than that. Big fucking deal. End of story. Making a general look "nice" is altering perception.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #22 November 22, 2008 Adding a flag behind a general is news? Dear Lord... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #23 November 22, 2008 Quote Adding a flag behind a general is news? Dear Lord... Well, the DoD did it and then submitted it to a news agency, so I guess someone in the DoD thought so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #24 November 22, 2008 AP needed a photo, standard photo of a soldier is with a flag backdrop, such a photo of the general wasn't readily available so they photo-shopped one in. BFD. Don't you guys have anything more important to argue about, like, maybe, how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #25 November 22, 2008 QuoteAP needed a photo, standard photo of a soldier is with a flag backdrop, such a photo of the general wasn't readily available so they photo-shopped one in. BFD. Don't you guys have anything more important to argue about, like, maybe, how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop? You are sadly misinformed. This is Speakers Corner on DZ.COM. If it were really a big deal, we wouldn't argue about it here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
