US DoD latest busted for photo manipulation

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Are four-star generals never normally seen around flags or something?

Like this one??

http://www.avclub.com/content/files/images/030416c_patton.article.jpg

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

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?

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.

Sorry..my bad.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

Actually, no, photographers do not do this all the time. Some do, and it remains controversial, even when use for non news (ie, art) purposes.

OTOH, one more generation and we won't even remember an era when photographs were useful as evidence.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I don't see how this is a big deal?

Shows their zeal for propoganda. If they feel the need to manipulate something so trivial; imagine what they are willing to do when something big is on the line.

If I'd steal from a person to buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich; I'd most likely commit mass murder for a side of beef.

Turn the question around. Would it have been no big deal to not doctor the photo? If no, then why did they bother.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[beowulf 1]

That's a bullshit comparison. Nothing was stolen or harmed by adding a flag in the background to make the photo look better.
No one here has come up with a good reason to be upset over this. All photos should be considered questionable when used as evidence. Anything can be photoshoped. This photo was not submitted as evidence of anything.

[Ion01 1]

Why is it okay for everyone else, magazines, news, TV programs, etc. to alter their photos to the point that it is impossible for humans to actually look like they do in photos but not okay in this case?
This may ultimately bring one to the conclusion that its not okay at all. How is altering photos and such for something like skin care products not false advertisement, which is illegal.

[pirana 0]

Quote

That's a bullshit comparison. Nothing was stolen or harmed by adding a flag in the background to make the photo look better.

I never said anything was stolen or harmed. My comparison was not to show a crime was committed.

My questioning is their motive. If they doctor a photo, and do not disclose doing so, what else are they willing to doctor without disclosure.

If something so harmless as a less than ideal backdrop causes them to manipulate a photo (and the key here is that they did not disclose it) what are they willing to manipulate when something really big is on the line.

There; now I've removed the crime element; and my assertion remains the same. It reveals their zeal for propoganda. (Though we hardly needed this trivial doctored photo to know that).

Maybe it is just fun to poke at it because our government has demonstrated such a well established penchant for lieing that to catch them in little deceptions is just part of the game.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Why is it okay for everyone else, magazines, news, TV programs, etc. to alter their photos to the point that it is impossible for humans to actually look like they do in photos but not okay in this case?

Those photos aren't being submitted to AP. AP evidently has a policy that it will not accept digitally altered photos, the DOD (who were almost certainly aware of this) gave them an altered photo, and now AP is upholding it's policy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

My questioning is their motive. If they doctor a photo, and do not disclose doing so, what else are they willing to doctor without disclosure.

Their motive is pretty obvious. They wanted to put their best foot forward. They wanted to present their General in the best possible light.
Your comparison implied that their changing the photo is similar to the crimes you used in your comparison.

Changing the photo is not that big of a deal.
The AP rejecting it isn't that big of a deal either.

[kallend 1,631]

Quote

Quote

My questioning is their motive. If they doctor a photo, and do not disclose doing so, what else are they willing to doctor without disclosure.

Their motive is pretty obvious. They wanted to put their best foot forward. They wanted to present their General in the best possible light..

Then they should have Photoshopped Nicole Kidman's face onto the image.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

oh man then there would really be a conspiracy at hand!!!

I guess it wouldn't be SC if people didn't blow things way out of proportion.