Found one rag that purposely alters photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 10, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
    picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
    at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
    guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
    their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    back of the thing.

    www.nowtoronto.com
    RichA, Feb 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    > > Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    > > guns from pictures.  As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    > > propagandizing is normal.  This came to light because they posted a
    > > picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
    > > at his head (a fake joke image).  But they literally remove images of
    > > guns from real-life photos.  Must produce some odd-looking shots.  But
    > > their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    > > back of the thing.

    >
    > >www.nowtoronto.com

    >
    > Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
    > newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
    > SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
    > newspaper and their policies.
    >
    > ...but you found it.
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
    this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.

    Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
    as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
    'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
    Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
    specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.

    What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
    what news organizations do.

    Vance
    Vance, Feb 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Guest

    On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:11:00 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    >guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    >propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
    >picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
    >at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
    >guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
    >their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    >back of the thing.
    >
    >www.nowtoronto.com


    I seem to recall that Stalin was pro gun, therefore the Stalinists
    must be those who are pro guns. Nice concept, the american loony
    right are Stalinists.
    , Feb 10, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/10/2012 11:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    >> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    >> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
    >> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
    >> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
    >> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
    >> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    >> back of the thing.
    >>
    >> www.nowtoronto.com

    >
    > Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
    > newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
    > SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
    > newspaper and their policies.
    >
    > ...but you found it.



    What does surprise me is that I don't think he ever quoted the Onion as
    a serious web site.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Feb 11, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Feb 10, 5:50 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 2/10/2012 11:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    > >> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    > >> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
    > >> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
    > >> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
    > >> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
    > >> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    > >> back of the thing.

    >
    > >>www.nowtoronto.com

    >
    > > Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
    > > newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
    > > SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
    > > newspaper and their policies.

    >
    > > ...but you found it.

    >
    > What does surprise me is that I don't think he ever quoted the Onion as
    > a serious web site.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Rich has demonstated a sufficiently high level of intelligence to
    figure out somethings just aren't going to work. He doesn't want to
    look like an obvious idiot.

    Vance
    Vance, Feb 11, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    >guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    >propagandizing is normal.


    Wow. You're just a crazy right-wing fascist, aren't you?

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
    Ray Fischer, Feb 11, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Feb 10, 11:23 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2012-02-10 22:22:05 -0800, Rich <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Vance <> wrote in news:124a19dc-5d1a-46c3-b822-
    > > :

    >
    > >> On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >>> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >>>> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    > >>>> guns from pictures.  As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    > >>>> propagandizing is normal.  This came to light because they posted a
    > >>>> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a

    > > gun
    > >>>> at his head (a fake joke image).  But they literally remove images

    > > of
    > >>>> guns from real-life photos.  Must produce some odd-looking shots.
    > >> But
    > >>>> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    > >>>> back of the thing.

    >
    > >>>>www.nowtoronto.com

    >
    > >>> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
    > >>> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
    > >>> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
    > >>> newspaper and their policies.

    >
    > >>> ...but you found it.
    > >>> --
    > >>> Regards,

    >
    > >>> Savageduck

    >
    > >> It's just Rich being Rich.  The implication he's trying to make is
    > >> this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.

    >
    > >> Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint.  He recognized it
    > >> as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
    > >> 'reputable' news organization.  Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
    > >> Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
    > >> specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.

    >
    > >> What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
    > >> what news organizations do.

    >
    > >> Vance

    >
    > > That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argument
    > > came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating
    > > images to remove guns.  If you people are ok with that manipulation, I
    > > fear for the integrity of the press.

    >
    > I think the point being made was, there is nobody here who considers
    > that screed a serious instrument of journalism, left or right. With
    > regard to the question of integrity, it doesn't seem as if integrity
    > was ever a priority for them. I doubt if many Canadians consider it a
    > serious source of factual information or news
    >
    > ...but it is a Canadian rag, so who knows how it is viewed by that
    > population. This is the first I had ever heard of it, and I have no
    > reason to return to those dubious pages.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Duck, that might be a little harsh. They probably are a very credible
    source of factual information for their audience. If they followed
    something like our product ingredients labelling, or just follow the
    common practice of advertising your products strongest point first,
    then news is the least important ingredient as shown on their
    website. If Toronto Now was a pharmaceutical, news might even be
    listed as an inert ingredient.

    Also, as far as I could tell, they aren't even pretending to be a news
    organization and that could deserve some Brownie Points, don't you
    think?

    I am waiting to see if I get a reply to my question on their editorial
    policy regarding image manipulation and specifically the gun thing.
    If it is their policy to edit guns out of images, I'm curious what the
    context is. It's rare, but when I just want to waste time for no real
    purpose, starting from what's real and seeing where Rich goes with it
    works.

    Vance
    Vance, Feb 11, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Feb 10, 10:22 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > Vance <> wrote in news:124a19dc-5d1a-46c3-b822-
    > :
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >> > Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    > >> > guns from pictures.  As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    > >> > propagandizing is normal.  This came to light because they posted a
    > >> > picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a

    > gun
    > >> > at his head (a fake joke image).  But they literally remove images

    > of
    > >> > guns from real-life photos.  Must produce some odd-looking shots.

    > > But
    > >> > their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    > >> > back of the thing.

    >
    > >> >www.nowtoronto.com

    >
    > >> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
    > >> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
    > >> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
    > >> newspaper and their policies.

    >
    > >> ...but you found it.
    > >> --
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >> Savageduck

    >
    > > It's just Rich being Rich.  The implication he's trying to make is
    > > this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.

    >
    > > Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint.  He recognized it
    > > as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
    > > 'reputable' news organization.  Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
    > > Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
    > > specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.

    >
    > > What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
    > > what news organizations do.

    >
    > > Vance

    >
    > That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argument
    > came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating
    > images to remove guns.  If you people are ok with that manipulation, I
    > fear for the integrity of the press.


    Truly amazing.

    The joke image isn't the core of the argument. Agreed.

    The argument arose because it was asserted that, for whatever reason,
    they edit out guns from images. Asserted and assumed true for
    purposes of argument, but unfounded by example, common knowledge, or
    knowledge that would be considered readily and publicly available.

    What's missing and what I find amazing is no argument actually exists.

    If there were an argument, it would have to be along the lines that
    the manipulation of images by editing out guns (or anything else for
    that matter) meaningfully effects the integrity of the press in a
    negative manner as the term press is commonly understood. It can't be
    the act of editing in, or editing out guns, because the joke image is
    okay. Since the joke image is okay, even though it is an example of
    image manipulation, and would be okay in either a left/liberal or
    right/conservative press publication, it is okay because of the
    context. It necessarily follows that, even broadening the common
    understanding of the term press to include something like Toronto Now
    when what is being done is in the context of reporting, it would have
    to be an image that violated the expected and necessary criteria for
    documentary images as reportage.

    Until that context, that foundation is made (mere assertion won't do
    it), what you posted is BS. The Duck recognizes the necessary
    context, it's right there in his posts. That's not surprising, or
    even really notable because he is an intelligent and reasoning man,
    even when I don't agree with him. I mention his posts because you
    seem a little weak in this area and they're good examples of informal
    rational argument. So that you know what you're looking at (no I
    don't believe you'll do that) a simple technical description is that
    would be the successful attack against of an opposing viewpoints
    foundation. The counter move is, of course, the successful rebuttal
    of the attack. You have a computer, so I will leave looking up what a
    rebuttal means as an exercise for you, if needed and I AM NOT implying
    that you do. Rebuttal has a precise definition and a lot of people
    think they know what it means when they really don't. It's just one
    of those words that people get a sense of from hearing/seeing it in a
    context, but don't really know what it means. There are a lot of
    words like that and everyone does it.

    The original post was a rant and I am responding to a rant. Rants are
    fine, but no matter how much makeup you slap on this pig, to actually
    have an argument you need another animal.

    Like I've said, sometimes a Rich post is a great way to while away a
    little time to no useful purpose. I know you're not really interested
    in a true argument and I don't have the slightest interest in trying
    to change your mind or educating you. This has simply been a pleasant
    period of personal entertainment, so thanks for the opportunity. By
    the way, without any context to refer to, I'm just fine with their
    manipulating images. I'm just that kind of liberal.

    Vance
    Vance, Feb 11, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:50:25 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 2/10/2012 11:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    : > On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <> said:
    : >
    : >> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
    : >> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
    : >> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a

    Stalin edited guns *out* of Soviet publications?! I'll bet that comes as news
    to anyone who remembers the jingoistic militarism of much of Stalin's
    propaganda.

    : >> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
    : >> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
    : >> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
    : >> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
    : >> back of the thing.
    : >>
    : >> www.nowtoronto.com
    : >
    : > Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
    : > newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
    : > SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
    : > newspaper and their policies.
    : >
    : > ...but you found it.
    :
    :
    : What does surprise me is that I don't think he ever quoted the Onion as
    : a serious web site.

    Maybe he thinks it's the Web site of a farm stand.
    There are such: http://www.verrillfarm.com/

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 11, 2012
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SBB

    Outlook Express Alters My URL

    SBB, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    494
    PA Bear
    Feb 12, 2004
  2. Walden Yapp

    Making an XP admin account limited alters appearance ?

    Walden Yapp, Aug 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    537
    °Mike°
    Aug 9, 2004
  3. Waterperson77

    purposely misframed 4:3 tv episodes on dvd

    Waterperson77, Feb 17, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    Waterperson77
    Feb 17, 2004
  4. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    3,824
  5. Bill

    How do one alters e-mail address?

    Bill, Jan 3, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    314
Loading...

Share This Page