I saw this via WizBang just a few minutes ago. It’s scary that Reuters has the balls to photoshop a note to make it look like Bush wanted to take a bathroom break during a meeting.
Reuters has already explained, saying “There was no malicious intent. That’s not what we do.” That’s a bullshit explanation though for photoshopping a note Bush was writing. They’re obviously trying to make him look bad. It’s a direct attack against him if they knowingly did it. Someone obviously did because you can see where they blanked out the original text. It’s too white compared to the rest of the paper.
Daily Pundit filled me in on the Reuters explanation. Little Green Footballs has a couple updates.
I can’t believe they would actually use that photoshopped image in actual news articles. This is probably one of the most fucked up things we’ve seen from Reuters. I’ve lost what little respect I had for the MSM. This type of thing is just wrong.
UPDATE: I need to clarify a little it would seem. I fully understand that Reuters could have enhanced the image to make the text more readable. For those of you that say the note was shown to show Bush for the puppet he is, you’re wrong. He needs to show a certain level of diplomacy at meetings like that. He can’t just get up and go piss when he feels like it, it would offend someone.
Well, now what?
Work with Me
I'm available for hire and always taking new clients, big and small. Got a project or an idea you'd like to discuss? Startup plan but no developer to make it happen? Just get in touch, I'd love to see if I can help you out!
Leave some Feedback
Got a question or some updated information releavant to this post? Please, leave a comment! The comments are a great way to get help, I read them all and reply to nearly every comment. Let's talk. 😀
Longren.io is proudly hosted by DigitalOcean
From http://underthenews.blogspot.com …
I’ve been a newspaperman since I co-founded my junior high paper at the tender age of 12, about 36 years ago. My final decision to become an ink-stained wretch was made in the heady post-Watergate days, the apex of journalism’s nobility and the calm before the anti-“Media” storm. Back then, it was still possible for a young reporter to think of himself as a kind of knight who could change the world with his typewriter.
Clearly, things have changed. The idealism of young journalists has lost its edge, the world doesn’t care too much what we say anymore, and the typewriter is a dusty decoration on my credenza.
And now I — and many like me — have been demoted from “knight” to “MSM.” This blogging acronym for “mainstream media” oozes a certain flippant disrespect, as if a life in journalism is not merely the least qualification for a blogger, but might even connote to Blogospherians an intolerable cowardice, arrogance or treachery. Many — maybe most — bloggers might just as well hang out a sign: “We don’t want your kind ’round here.”
I’m too new at blogging to understand the nuances. The blogosphere is certainly not a utopian society, free of prejudice, deception, crime, or other sins. It’s merely an extension of the old-model society, like a neighborhood on the other side of the Monorail tracks. So I’m not particularly surprised that the “Old Guard” of the Information Age (the so-called MSMers) are held suspect by the New Guard (bloggers.)
But I’m curious about why. I hear regularly how the MSM lacks fairness (OK, and balance) but increasingly I believe that aggressive news-consumers aren’t truly seeking reporting without bias … they want reporting that reflects their own bias. “Fair” is a report that generally supports the reader/viewer’s established opinions … “unfair” is a report that allows for divergent viewpoints. Thus, the mainstream media, in striving to allow for differing views, cannot avoid being labeled as “unfair” … and thus is demonized in the blogosphere (and apparently everywhere else that a person would be jealous of his opinions.) And in the Blogosphere, we are allowed to seek out the “fairest” opinions/reporting, i.e., the ones that fit our biases.
In my short blogging experience, I have sensed not just disdain for each other by both bloggers and MSMers, but a mutual paranoia that either might be the death of honest, accurate, important, genuine and noble information exchange. Personally, I believe more information is better than less, so I am not threatened by the Blogosphere, and I see its value in transmitting information that transcends the basic restrictions of mainstream media, namely space, time and mass audience.
I worry a little about the blogosphere’s “Tower of Babel” and information-anxiety, but they don’t keep me awake at night. Will the whole world soon turn to bloggers (and away from MSM) for information? It’s doubtful. But to supplement their minimum daily requirement of knowledge and entertainment? Absolutely.
I really want to know, from non-MSM bloggers and MSMers alike, is the blogosphere a community that is made better or worse by your co-existence? Why should one side be viewed more or less skeptically than the other? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses in this diverse community, vis a vis MSM?
Talk to me, bloggers.
I’ve got no beef with individuals working for the mainstream news outlets. It’s the news outlets themselves that I dislike. I realize that the people are usually just there to bring home a paycheck. I don’t blame them for that.
The companies themselves have an agenda and they push that agenda upon an audience that knows no other means of getting news. It’s the publics fault for being so damn stupid and gullible sometimes.
What evidence do you have that the image is ‘photoshopped’? Are you that insecure and desperate to attack the left that you need to harp on about something you can’t really believe is true?
I’m an graphics professional, and I can tell you that the image isn’t altered beyond color adjustment for clarity. So you can stop with the ridiculous foul-calling.
Moving right along, the reason this is news is because it is a clear indicator of Bush’s character as our leader. A man so indecisive that without his pantheon of puppetmasters’ input he has to *ASK* if he can urinate. THAT is why this image is telling, and to choose to interpret it as ‘juvenile’ is either:
a) deliberately obfuscatory (that means hiding stuff you know is bad)
b) stone stupid
c) completely nuts
Well, there’s no question it was photoshopped. Could have been photoshopped to enhance the original text to make it more clearly visible or the original text was completely replaced.
Either way I don’t think it’s OK for huge news outlets to do stuff like this. It’s like having fake boobies. It’s just fake no matter what. If they are going to photoshop images to make them clearer, they should at least do a good job. I could have photoshopped a note better than that…
Also Lucius, the photo was snapped during a UN meeting. Choosing the right time to get up to go take a bathroom break is probably very important. You wouldn’t just get up and go whenever you felt like you had to take a piss. If anything the note just shows that President Bush has a great deal of diplomacy.
Frankly I dont see why you’d request a bathroom break at all at a meeing of that magnitude. Unless there was a ploblem with the fortitude of our presidents bladder shouldnt see why would not be able to hold it. If urination was truly a pressing issue however I could see him writing a note suggesting a bathroom break, which as Tyler argues would make sense given the magnitude of the meeting.Due to this fact I’m really not so sure it’s photoshopped, I wont rule out the possibility that it is, but is there any unequivocal proof to it’s fallacy, if not I suggest you maybe should reamain open to the possibility as well