mdude85 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. I replied to your comment exactly as you wrote it. It seems like we're just going in circles now. I think I've gotten my point across, so for me this thread has run its course.
Before you go ... please be so kind to point out my reference to the Economist in my comment you quoted ..... as far as I could tell I never mentioned the Economist ... but I did mention the PGA photo incident that drofnad brought up ... I'm not going in circles ... however .. you may be experiencing difficulty in following the thread discussion .... you just seem to have a pat response to anything I say or offer ... instead of actually reading what I offer .....
IMO, the media has been fabricating stories for years by editing out material which would balance the story...so editing photos is simply an extension thereof and inherent in this process.
I have no problem since at least this is consistent.
Have you ever edited a story you told someone at the water cooler just to make it sound a certain way depending on the context and who you were talking to? If you are a white guy talking to a black fella and you had a story that included a black guy and you said in your most sanctimonious, PC manner when referring to that gentlemen "African American." This is the same thing. You are changing the story to meet the occasion, the way you want it to come across.
We should get off our high horse and realize that people need to take responsibility for their own thinking and stop believing everything that comes across the wire and do some ()*&)(&()& research. Private organizations are allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't remove the free will of the recipients...that is it. I do not expect there to be some legal enforcement over photo editing or whatever...it is no different than hate crime legislation and other asinine laws.
The unconstitutional US public education system has resulted in a generation of adults who grew up in the late 80's and 90's who DO NOT THINK, and simply suck down like their mommy's breast milk the pablum of the media.
Pat Flanakin wrote:
IMO, the media has been fabricating stories for years by editing out material which would balance the story...so editing photos is simply an extension thereof and inherent in this process.
I have no problem since at least this is consistent.
Have you ever edited a story you told someone at the water cooler just to make it sound a certain way depending on the context and who you were talking to? If you are a white guy talking to a black fella and you had a story that included a black guy and you said in your most sanctimonious, PC manner when referring to that gentlemen "African American." This is the same thing. You are changing the story to meet the occasion, the way you want it to come across.
We should get off our high horse and realize that people need to take responsibility for their own thinking and stop believing everything that comes across the wire and do some ()*&)(&()& research. Private organizations are allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't remove the free will of the recipients...that is it. I do not expect there to be some legal enforcement over photo editing or whatever...it is no different than hate crime legislation and other asinine laws.
The unconstitutional US public education system has resulted in a generation of adults who grew up in the late 80's and 90's who DO NOT THINK, and simply suck down like their mommy's breast milk the pablum of the media.
