Photoshopping

If you’re the kind of mad bastard who thinks it matters at-all-even-slightly-ever that Reuters bought a photo of the destruction in Lebanon that featured Photoshop-enhanced smoke, I hope you lose your eyes and teeth in a bizarre sailing accident.

I mean, what gives? Israel is merrily genociding the Lebanese population, and what you’re worrying about is some daft stringer making his photo more dramatic so the picture agencies will buy it? Yeah, that’s the fucking moral scandal. Obviously.

7 thoughts on “Photoshopping

  1. PDF,

    I think that the point is: how do you know that Israel are “genociding the Lebanese population” (incidentally, a little strong, don’t you think?)? You know through news outlets: so, how many pictures may have been Photoshopped to create a particular impression, and how many are genuine? To what extent and, under what agenda, are the news agencies affecting what you think about the conflict? Mr E has a good roundup of the various incidences.

    DK

  2. PDF says:

    The point is that you’d have to be a gibbering paranoid maniac to believe this is due to anything other than a) the commercial pressure for a photographer to produce striking pictures b) the commercial pressure for a news agency to provide striking pictures. It’s Occam’s razor – they’re commercial organisations who thrive on drama, so they want stuff that’s dramatic.

    Only people with a seriously fucked up “everyone in the entire world manipulates everything against Israel” worldview – basically the classic antisemitic “the Jews and their acolytes manipulate everything in favour of Israel” worldview but in reverse – would assume a deeper conspiracy behind this.

  3. One might have thought, then, that Reuters might be able to hire a rather better Photoshopper, or at least spot the very obvious and telltale signs of lazy cloning.

    Actually, I do tend to think that you are correct. However, having said that, whilst I think that it is unlikely that Reuters themselves are involved in any conspiracy it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Adnan Hajj is (especially given the other examples that people have been pulling up). Even if he does not have a pro-Hezbollah agenda, Mr Hajj is at best a fraud and a liar.

    DK

  4. N.I.B. says:

    If we all agree the thing about truth being the first casualty of war, and accept that these things might work both ways, isn’t it also *just as likely* that this ‘Adnan Hajj’ character, and others working inside Reuters, are working for the Israeli side?

    Sure, cue the X-Files music if you like, but really, a quick crappy photoshop here, a couple of hours on a ‘timestamp’ there, feed it out to the useful idiots in the blogosphere and the job’s a good un: The public instantly doubt *any* reports coming out of Lebanon.

    Unless someone can come up with some evidence that *doesn’t* rely on believing *any* of what the ‘MSM’ have published themselves (like the famous timestamps, for example), how can we ever know who is manipulating us, if at all?

  5. Brian says:

    Could you be any more of a fucking moron? You obviously misunderstand the idea of Occam’s Razor. Go grab your old PHIL 110 text and give it another read, idiot.

  6. PDF says:

    No, I understand it perfectly. It’s traditional, when calling someone a moron and telling them they’ve misunderstood a particular concept, to explain why you believe this to be so. Do feel free to do this, should you be capable of such a feat.

  7. Quim Terfel says:

    Occam’s Razor: The theory that shows the Muslim in the worst light is the correct one.

    Or, “I don’t believe anything I see in the lying press, or anything the lying Government says. Unless it’s about how rotten the Pakis are.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>