The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

08 August 2006

Rush Limbaugh, Reuters, Doctored Photos, Lebanon

'INVESTIGATE REUTERS'

Over Doctored Photos, Limbaugh's On The Rampage





Both angry and excited at the prospect of Reuters having been caught red- handed engaging in yellow war journalism, Rush Limbaugh was on the rampage during Monday's program.

Telling listeners that the first indication of doctored Lebanon wire photos had him up in the wee hours of the morning, Limbaugh went on the warpath, blaming the current mainstream media climate on Dan Rather, among others.

At this point, Reuters has been forced to pull 920 photos by Adnan Hajj, after a number were found to have obviously been photoshopped. All seemed designed to exaggerate civilian casualties inflicted on Lebanon by Israel.

Greatly damaging what little was left of the leftist news agency's sorry journalistic reputation, Reuters now appears to have actively taken sides in the Middle East conflict.


Not simply lambasting the national media for largely ignoring the story, Rush went further, calling for Reuters to face an investigation over the matter.

From his transcript:


RUSH: You know what struck me over the weekend, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Big Media, the Drive-By Media, never, ever get investigated. They do not investigate themselves. CBS did over Rather, but they had to on that one, but they never, ever get investigated. They can distort. They can lie. They can ruin people. They can create total false impressions of reality that has real effect on people's lives, and nobody ever demands an investigation. But you let it be Big Oil that does something or let it be Big Drug that does something or Big Retail or Big Tobacco, why, we'll stop the presses and we'll investigate. I know the media has First Amendment protections and I'm not suggesting Congress should do this.

I'm just saying, in terms of the institutions that guide our lives and shape our thinking, the one that perhaps has more importance and more power than any of these others never, ever gets called to task, never, ever is investigated, while they seek to investigate and destroy everybody else that gets in their way or of their agenda.


More here:


The opening of the program here about the media never being investigated, I'm sure many of you by now have heard of the literal fraud perpetrated by al-Reuters with all of the fake and doctored photos coming out of the action in Lebanon.

It's much too numerous to recount verbally here. We have this posted at RushLimbaugh.com. I was up 'til three in the morning on Sunday working on this when I first heard about this, and trying to organize all that's out there in the blogosphere. Little Green Footballs was the first to call attention to this. Charles Johnson, who runs that blog, has had his life threatened now by a Reuters -- we think it's a Reuters employee.

Somebody has used a Reuters e-mail address to send him a death threat essentially saying, he can't wait, the writer said he can't wait to see Charles Johnson's throat slit. It all started with a bunch of fake photos about bombing attacks in Beirut. Photoshop has a clone tool. If you use Photoshop, you're familiar with this -- and you can clone any aspect of a photo that you want.

They did it with smoke, and it was just horribly done. It was so obviously hurried, not even professional, not even a professional attempt to doctor the pictures, couldn't stand up to the light of day. Reuters took awhile before they retracted the picture, but it's already out there, it had already been on front pages of newspapers just like these phony baloney, plastic banana pictures that have come out of Qana.

We now know that much of these are staged. There are two other questionable pictures. There are actually more than that. This is tip of the iceberg, folks. Dan Rather was just the tip of the iceberg.

This stuff going on here is confirming every suspicion I've had about fake news oriented toward the action line per story that Drive-By Media types had.

Anything outside that doesn't permeate, doesn't register, and they're not interested in it. In fact, they'll even make things up and enhance things and make it look worse than it was to advance their story line. Reuters ought to be disgraced forever over this. They ought to be investigated. They ought to investigate themselves.

Haven't heard any call for this, and that's what made me realize, this outfit, this bunch, this industry, as destructive as it can be, both to individuals, to corporations, and to cultures and societies never, ever gets investigated, nor do the individuals in it ever get investigated.


Now, the second picture -- and this was a doozy -- the second picture purported to show an Israeli F-16, although the F-16 was not in the picture frame.

It was cropped out. What it showed was three or four missiles being launched, obviously on innocent civilian targets. The caption is as important as the picture. It turns out that the real picture was of an Israeli F-16 firing off one flare, as in chaff, to try to confuse surface-to-air missiles if the Hezbos have any and if they were going to launch any. You take the picture; you duplicate or clone the flare and its streak of smoke through the sky which was being emitted from behind the F-16 when you see the real picture.

The cropped version made it look like these were missiles that had been fired. There were four of them. The other thing that has just been discovered -- and countless more. There have to be countless more, not just with Reuters.

Reuters has finally said: We're not going to use this freelancer anymore, Adnan Hajj, al-Sheik, whatever his name is. I couldn't care less. They pulled his entire portfolio from their website, but there's another picture showed from about a week apart. First picture is a wide-angle view of a destroyed building somewhere in Lebanon, and I think that's on July 24th or the 28th. On August 4th, the same picture -- well, picture at the same place, close up, showing one of the same buildings with a forlorn woman walking through the rubble was sent out on the wire again as evidence of a second bombing. It was the same place, the same destruction, with different angles, different fields of view from the view finder, and it's all been portrayed as two separate attacks. In the first instance where the smoke was cloned to make it look as though the whole city was on fire, they even cloned buildings.


To see where it all started, visit the blogs behind the exposure of this journalistic atrocity: Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Michelle Malkin and others.

For talk radio as a whole, Reuters represents the gift that keeps on giving. Keep it up, guys, we love ya!

UPDATE: The American Thinker adds more to the talk radio / Reuters angle.

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

Some images: RushLimbaugh.com

47 Comments:

  • How will the left spin this latest fiasco?

    Prediction: So, someone enhanced a few photos, BIG DEAL! That's nothing compared to Bush's lies. The Right must be getting desperate to think this is a scandal. After all, no one was hurt by the release of these doctored photos. I guess Karl Rove has been working overtime lately.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 08 August, 2006 11:05  

  • Huh....Mel Gibson makes some idiotic comments in a drunken stupor, and he's anti-Semitic, Reuters slanders Israel with doctored photos and it's no big deal. It is no surprise to me that the left has no problem putting on their grey uniforms and swastika arm bands. They want Israel to look evil, and they want everyone of the Jews in Israel run into the sea, because that is the liberal plan to pacify the scary, scary terrorists. When natural selection reigned in America liberals used to be called "bear food".

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 08 August, 2006 11:14  

  • Only an idiot believes that a 12% alcohol level changes the true character of an individual. If anything, it loosens them up so that they speak their true feelings.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 08 August, 2006 11:37  

  • There are folks on the DU that are suggesting that Adnan Hajj is either CIA or a Mossad plant. I shit you not.

    I don't think that the photoshopping activities of Adnan Hajj is proof of a systematic effort on the part of Reuters (as a company) to deceive, so much as an effort on the part of the photog to express visually the narrative that Reuters has decided to present. That decision is made obvious by the hiring of a photog with obvious sympathies for HZB. If Reuters would be up-front with that decision, then we could consider the information that they present with the enormous block of salt that it deserves. Instead, they try to hide behind their "neutral" platform, which is why they deserve to get hammered.

    The advent of Photoshop is quickly making the journalistic and evidentiary value of digital photography null and void. Do not be surprised if you see a call to return to the old days of film photography, if at least as an analog backup that is more pShop-proof.

    By Blogger JD, at 08 August, 2006 11:53  

  • JD said:
    The advent of Photoshop is quickly making the journalistic and evidentiary value of digital photography null and void.

    I agree that the legal evidentiary value is destroyed, but unfortunately, as long as there are editors who want to put their personal agenda ahead of the truth, there will still be saps who will believe the fraudulent photos are the real thing.

    And just imagine what happens when al-Reuters starts hiring some good photoshop technicians?
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 08 August, 2006 12:18  

  • "Only an idiot believes that a 12% alcohol level changes the true character of an individual. If anything, it loosens them up so that they speak their true feelings."

    Okay, then.

    I think what the 'watchman was trying to point out was that there's a little bit more global import to the pShop photog's creative impulses than there is to one (admittedly A-list) actor's verbal diarrhea when he's drunk.

    And no, I don't think "the left" wants Israel run into the sea, as evidently does the 'watchman, it's just that "the left" has changed its mind about Eretz Yisroel since the advance to power of Likud under Menachem Begin; prior to 1977, Israel had been led by the Labour party since the nation's its founding in 1947. On balance, right now I think "the left" would prefer that Israel just vanish. However, I have a suspicion that if Likud or Kadima were to suddenly 'vanish,' and Labor/Mapai return to power, you would see a bit of a turnaround in the opinion of "the left" as regards Israel.

    By Blogger JD, at 08 August, 2006 12:24  

  • How will the left spin this latest fiasco?

    Please explain why its the "lefts" job to spin this. Are you implying the left are at fault? It's one person (Hajj) fucking up.

    Were the Catholics asked to "spin" Gibson's anti-semitism, as if they, as a group, were at fault?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 08 August, 2006 12:25  

  • To follow up on my above comment about individuals being representative of their group...

    Sean Hannity is the biggest bullshit artist alive. Not one of those Anti-Franken or Anti-MMFA sites have refuted anything Franken/MMFA have said about Hannity's lies. So its pretty clear he's a huge liar. Is the entirety of Fox News, the right-wing press, and/or conservative Christians responsible for Hannity? Should they all have to "spin" or justify his BS?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 08 August, 2006 12:30  

  • Mr. Kite said:
    Are you implying the left are at fault? It's one person (Hajj) fucking up.

    I'm not just implying, I am stating that it is definitely the left at fault. As a symphathizer to the Hezbollah, Hajj shot the photos and manipulated them. The Reuter's photo editor permitted the photos to be posted. Other left-wing newspapers and websites allowed the obviously doctored photos to run. And now, the left-wing folks are trying to disprove the photos. Take a look at link JD supplied regarding the CIA or a Mossad planting the photos.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 08 August, 2006 12:54  

  • Mr. Kite - What in hell does Sean Hannity have to do with Reuters' publication of doctored photos? And why would anything that Frankenfluff or the MMFAnatics say about Sean Hannity bear any information on the subject?

    Focus, people, focus.

    By Blogger JD, at 08 August, 2006 13:17  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 08 August, 2006 13:38  

  • Mr. Kite - What in hell does Sean Hannity have to do...

    It's called an analogy.


    I'm not just implying, I am stating that it is definitely the left at fault. As a symphathizer to the Hezbollah, Hajj shot the photos and manipulated them. The Reuter's photo editor permitted the photos to be posted. Other left-wing newspapers and websites allowed the obviously doctored photos to run.

    Prove that the "photo editor" (a) knew about the doctoring and (b) is liberal.

    Show me what "newspapers and websites" allowed the image and knew it was doctored, and prove they are liberal.

    Then you could have some reason to say "the left" is at fault.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 08 August, 2006 13:48  

  • Dishonest actions by individual employees frequently stain the organizations they work for. Lack of internal controls, overwork, or poor supervision are all possible reasons for shoddy work. Shameful hacks on both ends of the political spectrum ALWAYS attribute these failings to political motivation. These people need to be discredited.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 08 August, 2006 13:51  

  • Mmmmmm. Remember the picture of Kerry and Fonda, that was doctored. Check out this site for many examples of doctored photos in the news
    http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

    I do not doubt these photos were doctored, but it has nothing to do with the American left, as you guys are trying to imply. The photographer appears to be from Lebanon, maybe trying to furthur his viewpoint (not the left in America) He should rightfully be relieved of his duties.
    Anyone with a 1/2 a brain can see what Limbaugh is trying to do, NEGATE the civilian deaths by pointing out the doctored photo. I would love a follow-up on this story. The doctored photo does not take the place of the 600+ civilians killed in Lebanon so far. Do not lose site of that. When Limbaugh mentions the doctored swift-boat pictures, I will give him credit.
    I think in the act of fairness, I will discuss this topic on our internet radio show on Thursday, because I belive in giving credit where credit is due

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 08 August, 2006 13:52  

  • Mr. Kite posted:

    Prove that the "photo editor" (a) knew about the doctoring and (b) is liberal.


    For the first part, I guess we can both agree that the photo editor was at best incompetent, at worst biased. If incompetent, so be it - no bias, but not really what you want in your news source, is it?

    For the second part, there is quite a bit of research to back up the contention that the vast majority of the media is liberal, or at least left of center

    Mr. Kite continued:

    Show me what "newspapers and websites" allowed the image and knew it was doctored, and prove they are liberal.


    Anyone who uses Reuters would be your source. Did they know? Perhaps not, but it appears that's not the standard required for lying now, is it? Just using a false source is enough to be considered a liar in today's vernacular use of the word by the liberal side.

    Oh, and proof they're liberal? See the results of the UCLA research, where CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and many others - 90% of all media, in fact - are identified as left of center. Liberal.

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 08 August, 2006 16:20  

  • Watching RWW troll these comments for listeners is funnier than the Lamont/Lieberman and McKinney campaigns combined.

    By Blogger TC, at 08 August, 2006 16:41  

  • how quick we are to blame others. Reuters is an international company, with no political advantages to gain in the US. this wasn't a conspiracy by the left, nor was it propaganda by the right (as some other sites are trying to make us believe.) this was the act of a human being who desperately wanted media attention for his photos.

    this wasn't some tactical decision perpetrated by Howard Dean. it was the act of a sick individual.

    you conservatives on here really have lost touch with reality, and i pity you. you have no idea what you are talking about these days, and that is why, by a margin of almost 26 points according to a recent ABC poll, voters identify democrats as having more integrity than republicans. look it up if you don't believe me. you claim that the democrats can't win and that we're out of touch, but i suggest you actually take a look at the numbers. You and your ilk are the ones who have lost touch with reality, and i feel sorry for you because you can't accept the truth.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 08 August, 2006 17:59  

  • hcg said
    this was the act of a human being who desperately wanted media attention for his photos.

    If you really are naive enough to believe this was the act of one person, then you should feel sorry for yourself. Take a look at the garbage that has passed-off as photos in the past.

    Do you really believe the photography editor and others at Reuters could not see the attempted fraud in the photo? Even novice photographers can see the blantant changes.

    Feel sorry for yourself since you cannot even see the truth when it is biting you in the butt.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 08 August, 2006 19:06  

  • "recent ABC poll, voters identify democrats as having more integrity than republicans"

    I tried to look this up without success.... since you're the one making the claim, would you please provide a link? Thank you.

    Oh and below are a few links of pictures from the press that are also the acts of lefty individuals that didn't get caught by their editors for some reason.

    http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/cheneyretire_2.jpg

    http://www.alexanderjason.com/images/Condi-Eyes.gif

    http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43856


    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101950123,00.html


    http://www.time.com/time/searchresults?N=46&D=hillary&Ntt=hillary&Ntk=NoBody&Ntx=mode+matchany&Nty=1


    Whoops this last set are pictures of Hillary so please don't be angry about how they treated her

    By Blogger Lokki, at 08 August, 2006 19:13  

  • For the first part, I guess we can both agree that the photo editor was at best incompetent, at worst biased.
    Incompetent, may be. He could also have simply assumed that the photo wasn't altered. I doubt that happens enough to really look for it on a regular basis. At worst biased? I could think of many things more worse than being biased. Could he have been biased? I suppose. Everyone has the ability to be biased. But to which way? I've never heard of a bias for altered photos.

    If incompetent, so be it - no bias, but not really what you want in your news source, is it?
    Of course I don't want incompetence in a news source. Thats why the only one I trust is real journalist Brian Maloney.

    For the second part, there is quite a bit of research to back up the contention that the vast majority of the media is liberal, or at least left of center
    There's also quite a bit of research to back up the fact that MRC is a crock of shit. And that UCLA study was right-wing funded nonsense that MM tore apart. And even if any of that were true, how does it prove that the "photo editor" was biased? How do you know he isn't a hardcore Republican?

    And speaking of the "photo editor," who is he? What is his name? Does he even exist? Could it be that Hajj just enetered that photo into the Reuters database without the approval of some (possibly non-existant) editor?

    Anyone who uses Reuters would be your source.
    The only place I saw that photo was Yahoo. Any other places you're going to have to name. And speaking of Yahoo, they're run by Republicans (Yang in particular). So may be this is a blatant right-wing conspiracy.

    Did they know? Perhaps not
    Perhaps not? If you're going to make the claim that this is some ploy of the "liberal media," its up to you to prove that they knew. "Perhaps not" simply doesn't cut it.

    but it appears that's not the standard required for lying now, is it? Just using a false source is enough to be considered a liar in today's vernacular use of the word by the liberal side.
    What's this all about? Please cite some examples of what you're claiming. Besides, who cares what the left thinks? Do you think someone using a bad source is just as guility as the source?

    Oh, and proof they're liberal? See the results of the UCLA research, where CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and many others - 90% of all media, in fact - are identified as left of center. Liberal.
    You forgot NPR. LOLers... please see the results of MM's destruction of the UCLA study. Also, there are plenty of papers with a (blatant) conservative tilt (Pitssburgh Tribune-Review, NY Post, Moonie Times, others), do you know if they ran the photo or not? Are they part of this evil liberal media ploy to destroy america with altered photos?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 09 August, 2006 02:17  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 09 August, 2006 03:26  

  • Actually, things are getting very interesting in the world of photojournalism (or, as some are now calling it, fauxtojournalism).

    Thanks to the blogosphere -- and Little Green Footballs in particular -- Reuters has already acknowledged that the same photographer doctored at least one other photo.

    But here's the fun part: With all the added scrutiny on news photos, bloggers have discovered obviously posed photos in which, for instance, a "dead" guy is shown atop the aftermath of an Israeli bombing raid, then -- in a scene out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- the same person is shown walking around in a different photo.

    There's also the small matter of a guy posing as a Civil Defense worker in one shot, a mortician in another, etc.

    And wait till you see all the photos with children's toys in the foreground of post-bombing photos. Somehow, the teddy bear, Mickey Mouse, etc., always looks pristine even though it supposedly survived an Israeli bombing run.

    The question is, did the photographers engineer these scams (it seems obvious that Hajj did)? Were the news agencies in on it, too? Or were they the slackjawed dupes of P.R.-savvy Hezbollah and Friends?

    Hard to say, but whatever the case, it doesn't exactly bolster the reputation of Reuters and other willing/unwilling participants. They're in the same position Dan Rather was after those "1970s" memos proved to be fakes. His basic options (and theirs) were to either admit he was biased ... or admit he was gullible and incompetent. Not the best choices for a veteran newsman ... or news agency.

    The other problem for the agency that was already nicknamed "al-Reuters" is this: While its editors can say, "Hey, anybody can make a mistake," its critics can always come back with, "True, but why is it that the 'mistakes' in your photographs all seem to make Israel look bad?"

    I mean, if these were just random examples of incompetence, wouldn't you expect a distribution at least approaching 50-50 in terms of political bias?

    And of course, no matter what Reuters does at this point, its credibility will be shaky for years to come.

    Anyway, check out www.littlegreenfootballs.com to see some of these pertinent photos and links -- you'll be utterly amazed.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 09 August, 2006 03:30  

  • Mr. Kite said ...
    "There's also quite a bit of research to back up the fact that MRC is a crock of shit. And that UCLA study was right-wing funded nonsense that MM tore apart."

    *******************

    But regardless of what MRC is or isn't, what does that have to do with the studies cited on this page?

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

    You've got one study by the University of Connecticut, another by Editor & Publisher, another by U.S. News & World Report ... George Washington University ... the Chicago Tribune ... and even The New York Times, for crying out loud.

    Unless this information is flat-out bogus or every one of these studies has been discredited, the media's leftward tilt seems rather obvious.

    Now, I agree that this may or may not have anything directly to do with the Reuters photo incident, but it provides a context that's rather difficult to dismiss.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 09 August, 2006 04:38  

  • Mr. Kite posted:

    but it appears that's not the standard required for lying now, is it? Just using a false source is enough to be considered a liar in today's vernacular use of the word by the liberal side.
    What's this all about? Please cite some examples of what you're claiming. Besides, who cares what the left thinks? Do you think someone using a bad source is just as guility as the source?


    Four words, Mr. Kite. Mush Lied, People Died. Did President Bush lie? Did he knowingly use a false source? If you can't prove it then he is no more a liar than any media outlet who used the Reuters photo. The best you could argue would be he was misled.

    Oh, and proof they're liberal? See the results of the UCLA research, where CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and many others - 90% of all media, in fact - are identified as left of center. Liberal.
    You forgot NPR. LOLers... please see the results of MM's destruction of the UCLA study.


    Personally, I think the MM "destruction" was anything but.

    So how do you account for the Pew study where the overwhelming majority of journalists SELF-IDENTIFIED as liberal at 5 times the rate they identified as conservative, way out of line with the US population.

    Don't take some third party's word for it - listen to what the media themselves say - they are liberal.

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 09 August, 2006 09:12  

  • you people who keep whining about the media being "liberal" sound just like the conspiracy theorists who claim that 9/11 was an inside job. perhaps you would like to announce that the loch ness monster was the one who took the photos because he is angry that John Kerry lost? or maybe that bigfoot planted the Viagra on Limbaugh's jet?

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 09 August, 2006 09:29  

  • You guys can post MRC studies. I can post MMFA/Franken/FAIR studies. That won't change anything. I was just giving a counter example.

    That doesn't prove that the "photo editor" has a liberal bias or that the papers running the picture (of which we don't even have a list) are biased.

    Four words, Mr. Kite. Mush Lied, People Died. Did President Bush lie? Did he knowingly use a false source? If you can't prove it then he is no more a liar than any media outlet who used the Reuters photo. The best you could argue would be he was misled.
    There's a huge fucking difference between going to war with inaccurate info and trusting that a Reuters photo is legitimate. The latter doesn't get people killed.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 09 August, 2006 10:29  

  • Mr. Kite said:
    There's a huge fucking difference between going to war with inaccurate info and trusting that a Reuters photo is legitimate. The latter doesn't get people killed.

    Perhaps he should have put a little bit of thought into this before hurling.

    Yes, there's a huge difference between going to war with information that hundreds of international officials believed credible (would you like to see the quotes?) vs. trusting a biased Reuters organization that distort photos. Guess what? The latter does get people killed.

    If Mr. Kite had any knowledge of history, he would realize that fraudulent propaganda does kill. It causes people like him to go weakkneed (lacking strength of character or purpose) and send a strong signal to the enemy that we are cowering in fear over doctored photos. This acceptance of propaganda gives the terrorists the mistaken belief that they should continue fighting... and more people will be killed.
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 09 August, 2006 11:03  

  • Yea, I'm sure the terrorists are just reading newspaper looking for something to get upset about. Way to go, Benson.

    How does some extra smoke in a picture cause me to get weakkneed? Please explain. This should be good.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 09 August, 2006 11:39  

  • This acceptance of propaganda gives the terrorists the mistaken belief that they should continue fighting... and more people will be killed.
    ....said the man who is spouting off Fox News talking points.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 09 August, 2006 11:44  

  • Mr. Kite said:
    Yea, I'm sure the terrorists are just reading newspaper looking for something to get upset about.

    He is incredibly naive and/or childish if he thinks Hezbolla and al-Qaeda are not reading the New York Times and the LA Times every day.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 09 August, 2006 12:35  

  • Of course they are. They want to see the reviews for Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. And they just can't go a day without doing the NY Times crossword.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 09 August, 2006 12:42  

  • T.C:Watching RWW troll these comments for listeners is funnier than the Lamont/Lieberman and McKinney campaigns combined.


    Free advertising is free advertising, I know you neo-clowns love radio, so why not? Lamont, I woulden't laugh if I were you, America is tired of the Iraqi war, 60% of America, you are the "kook" now. The reason why Lieberman even got 48% is the fact that he is a decent senator for his state, and many independents( far right independents) registered democrat for the primary. I would say 20% of the votes were for his job for Ct., the other 20% or so, were far right wingers. i see nothing funny at all. I guess you consider $280 million in US taxpayers going to an Islamic theocracy funny? I guess you find the " death to America, death to Isreal" rally in Iraq funny????? I guess you find the 2500+ US soldiers lives sacraficed for this Islamic theocracy funny?
    As far as McKinney, she deserved to lose. Nobody wants to support somebody who can not control themselves and acts like a child. Not Democrats. On your side, you defend criminals, like Delay and Cunningham. No ethics from Republicans at all. Dems removed the problem in Atlanta, in Cynthia Mckinney. Again nothing funny except the irony, Repubs still support criminals, Democrats vote out the problem, like McKinney.
    face it T.C, you arew a hack and can not debate someone in my league

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 09 August, 2006 13:09  

  • Benson:He is incredibly naive and/or childish if he thinks Hezbolla and al-Qaeda are not reading the New York Times and the LA Times every day.

    you are incredibly niave if you think the terrorists do not know we monitor SWIFT bank account transactions.
    The photographer is a scam artist, 100% agreed. No he was not working for the "left", the "left" do not support Hezbolah, but rather feel Isreal's actions furthur endanger the country by enraging Muslims, who formally did not support Hezbolah. I do not know the man's motives, but it was definatley not to boost the Liberal wing of the Democratic party. Only in Limbaugh land does that logic work. Maybe news groups should not assign people who may be prejudiced in relation to their assignment. Maybe someone of Lebaneese background or Isreali background should not be working on the story. Simple as that.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 09 August, 2006 13:17  

  • What we've got here is a modern version of William Randolph Hearst's famous (but apocryphal and since disproven) cable to Frederic Remington in Havana in 1898: "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."

    In any event, Hearst let slip the bonds between journalism and activism with his papers' coverage of the events surrounding the destruction of Maine.

    Whether Reuters likes it or not, every photo coming out of their vault now carries a taint of 'fauxtography.' And yes, Mr. Kite, it is Reuters, and not just Yahoo, that was sourcing the photo, because it was Reuters that had to put out the Picture Kill. Just because you only saw it on Yahoo doesn't mean that it wasn't being published elsewhere. Take your "blatant right wing conspiracy" noise back to the DU where it belongs, as noted above.

    RWW - You spew about party hackery? Take a good, long look in the mirror, bub. Ethics? Ya wanna talk about ethics? Okay, then. Let's talk about Tom DeLay. In the wake of the Ronnie Earle fiasco and the Abramoff scandal, he announced that he was resigning from congress, and was no longer running for re-election and was changing his residency to Virginia. Unfortunately, that occurred after the Texas primary.

    The GOP tried to place another candidate on the ballot, but the Texas Democratic Party sued to keep Tom DeLay on the ballot, even though he has announced his resignation at the end of his term. Once again: Democrats sued to keep Tom DeLay on the ballot. Evidently the Torch option doesn't extend to Texas. Maybe it's only for Senate candidates instead of house candidates.

    The case has percolated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Antonin Scalia (second only to Clarence Thomas in terms of Donk boogeyman status) declined to intervene on Delay's behalf.

    So, Delay is following the rules as set down by the courts, and is sponsoring a write-in candidate while being forced to remain on the ballot. He could just as easily remain on the ballot and win the seat, but instead he wants to give someone else a shot - a shot which the TX Dem party has gone out of its way to deny.

    Because of the "ethics."

    And the second you start pounding on William Jefferson with equal vigor, then I'll start buying your crap about "Democrats vote out the problem." You hack.

    By Blogger JD, at 09 August, 2006 13:44  

  • J.d
    Take your "blatant right wing conspiracy" noise back to the DU where it belongs, as noted above.


    What conspiracy did I mention? I said the journalist should be FIRED. It lowers the bar, and ruins credibility. AGREED. I never said it was a conspiracy, but I did point out no right winger touched the fake swift-boat pictures, not a word.

    As far as Delay, I understand what happened and why he is stuck on the ballot. Still bloggers, right wing talk show hosts and others, love the man, and I bet he will get a decent amount of votes, who knows maybe even win. Mckinney was rightfully voted OUT.
    Dems did attack Clinton on ethics issues & about the pardons, but defended him on the sex attack, because it was unrelated to politics. Delay's ethics issues are an ABUSE of POWER.
    I stand by what I say, Dems immediatly solve the problem of a rotten apple, Republicans defend the problem until there is a conviction.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 09 August, 2006 14:16  

  • With political hacks ideology ALWAYS trumps ethics. Thats why I wouldn't be surprised if Delay wins.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 09 August, 2006 15:41  

  • Mr. Kite,

    The press itself considers itself liberal in self-identification. To dispute this is simply disingenuous. The press self-identifies as liberal, at a rate of 5:1 or more as opposed to conservative.

    And I guess your issue is no longer than President Bush lied? Perhaps inaccurate information - maybe faked photographs? - led him to take the action he did. But that does not mean he lied.

    Willing to make that concession?

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 09 August, 2006 17:01  

  • Oh, and if you'd like one more confirmation of the press' partisanship, have you heard ANYTHING about the fact that President Clinton and ENRON are responsible for the current price of oil?

    A bipartisan report from Norm Coleman and Carl Levin lays the blame for at least $25/barrel price increase at the foot of the CFMA act signed by President William Jefferson Clinton at the behest of ENRON.

    This report has been out for 6 weeks. Yet not a single peep in the national press - why? Perhaps because showing that the current price of oil is NOT the fault of President Bush, and in fact is the direct result of a Democratic administration's capitulation to ENRON...

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 09 August, 2006 17:55  

  • RWW - first, an apology. I was speaking to Mr. Kite in regards to the 'blatant right wing conspiracy.' Sorry if I was imprecise in my response.

    However, you executed a nice little dodge there. I was speaking of William Jefferson, congresscritter for the 2nd District of Louisiana, the guy who got caught on tape taking money, and got nailed with the money in the freezer, and not William Jefferson (The Ultimate Answer) Clinton.

    William Jefferson is a filed candidate according to the LA and is running for re-election. Any thoughts on that? Because if, as you say, the "Dems immediatly solve the problem of a rotten apple, Republicans defend the problem until there is a conviction," then there is no earthly reason he should be anywhere near the ballot, right? Or is Jefferson entitled to the presumption of innocence prior to any sanction against him? And if that's the case, why not DeLay as well?

    When will you wake up and smell what you're shoveling?

    By Blogger JD, at 09 August, 2006 19:18  

  • The press itself considers itself liberal in self-identification. To dispute this is simply disingenuous. The press self-identifies as liberal, at a rate of 5:1 or more as opposed to conservative.
    That doesn't mean anything. You still haven't identified where the picture ran. Once you do that, you can tell me if those places are liberal.

    And I guess your issue is no longer than President Bush lied? Perhaps inaccurate information - maybe faked photographs? - led him to take the action he did. But that does not mean he lied.
    My issue was never whether he lied or not. You brought him up.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 10 August, 2006 00:34  

  • Minister of Propaganda wrote ...

    "I stand by what I say, Dems immediatly solve the problem of a rotten apple, Republicans defend the problem until there is a conviction."

    "Repubs still support criminals, Democrats vote out the problem, like McKinney."

    Are you sure you want to stand on that buckling limb?

    Because if you're going to seriously claim that Democrats "vote out the problem" and "immediately solve the problem of a rotten apple," then -- in the words of Desi Arnaz -- you've got some 'splainin' to do.

    Here's the easiest exception I can think of (and I didn't have to think long or hard). Let's review the story of Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry, courtesy of the Washington Post:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/
    longterm/library/dc/barry/barry.htm

    "During his 1990 trial, Barry's lawyer, R. Kenneth Mundy, acknowledged the mayor occasionally used cocaine. Barry was convicted of one of the 14 charges pending against him – a misdemeanor charge for possessing cocaine in November 1989."

    Don't know about you, but I'd say a mayor who admittedly does coke -- and not the kind with the word "Classic" attached to it -- is in "bad apple" territory at this point. So if what you say is true, one would naturally expected Democrats to display that problem-solving, vote-'em-out-of-office integrity you speak of, yes?

    Amazingly, here's what happened next:
    "The mayor was sentenced to six months in prison in October 1990, while he was in the midst of a campaign for a D.C. Council seat.

    "But Barry came back. He won back a council seat in 1992 and was reelected mayor in 1994."

    And what party did Barry belong to? (Hint: It doesn't begin with an "R.")

    Here, check out this image of "Mayors Gone Wild":
    http://www.rotten.com/library/
    bio/usa/marion-barry/

    But wait -- there's more ... from October 2005, no less:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
    article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801028.html
    "Former D.C. mayor Marion Barry pleaded guilty yesterday to two misdemeanor tax charges, admitting in federal court that he failed to pay most of his income taxes for five years after departing from the District government in 1999.

    "Barry, who returned to politics last year after being elected to represent Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, earned more than $530,000 during his five-year hiatus from office but never filed a tax return documenting the income, prosecutors said."

    Hmmm, what's that I smell? I could swear it's some kind of cider ...

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 10 August, 2006 03:05  

  • The Benson Report said ...
    "If Mr. Kite had any knowledge of history, he would realize that fraudulent propaganda does kill. It causes people like him to go weakkneed (lacking strength of character or purpose) and send a strong signal to the enemy that we are cowering in fear over doctored photos. This acceptance of propaganda gives the terrorists the mistaken belief that they should continue fighting... and more people will be killed."

    Actually, there's an easier example than that. Remember this bogus Newsweek story from 2005? I'm sure the magazine's little "oopsy" did a lot for the survivors of the 16 people who were killed in the resulting rioting.

    www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087
    &sid=aTF8ibO4aCn8&refer=top_world_news

    ***************************
    Newsweek retracts story on Koran desecration 16 May 2005 21:39:50 GMT
    Source: Reuters
    H NEW YORK, May 16 (Reuters) - Newsweek on Monday retracted a report that claimed U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran, which triggered days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 16 people were killed.

    "Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said in a statement.

    The White House on Monday challenged the accuracy of Newsweek's May 9 report which was based on an anonymous source and said it had damaged the U.S. image overseas.

    The Pentagon said an investigation remained open into allegations contained in the Newsweek report.

    Whitaker apologized on Sunday to the victims of the protests and said the magazine had inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

    "The report has had serious consequences," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

    *********************************
    Yo, Newsweek -- it's not so simple to unring a bell:

    www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus
    .asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200505\FOR20050517b.html

    (CNSNews.com) - Unimpressed by Newsweek's retraction of explosive claims that U.S. military interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran, radical Islamic leaders in Pakistan say they will not drop plans for an international day of protest next week.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 10 August, 2006 03:27  

  • J.D
    Ohhh that William Jefferson, the one that Air America attacked on the air regarding the money in the freezer, Ok, I recall that. Let's see if he wins re-election. Fair enough.
    $th Estate
    Marion Barry? Has a drug problem, in my eyes not a crime against anyone other than himself, BUT..... I'm about to give you credit

    "Barry, who returned to politics last year after being elected to represent Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, earned more than $530,000 during his five-year hiatus from office but never filed a tax return documenting the income, prosecutors said.

    That I had no idea about. That is where a crime was committed. Well, I stand corrected Democrats do not always vote out the problem. Was this widely published?

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 10 August, 2006 09:57  

  • Kite - once again: It. Was. On. The. Reuters. Wire. Therefore it was available to EVERY newspaper that carries Reuters.

    As it stands now, NYT and SFChron are still carrying Adnan Hajj photos from Lebanon, even though Reuters has ostensibly pulled his entire block of work (~~900 photos). LATimes, SacBee and SJMercury have pulled his work.

    But because Reuters pulled his work, there is no way to tell whether or not papers ran the photo before the controversy arose unless someone goes and looks at the dead-tree versions.

    But if Mr. Kite chooses to squinch his eyes shut, plug his ears and shriek "lalalalalalala!" then there's very little we can do about it; it won't change the fact that Reuters was out-and-out busted for 'framing' the news.

    As have now evidently NYT and US Snooze.

    And so it goes..."you furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war..."

    By Blogger JD, at 10 August, 2006 11:41  

  • Minister of Propaganda wrote:
    Marion Barry? Has a drug problem, in my eyes not a crime against anyone other than himself, BUT..... I'm about to give you credit

    "Barry, who returned to politics last year after being elected to represent Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, earned more than $530,000 during his five-year hiatus from office but never filed a tax return documenting the income, prosecutors said."

    That I had no idea about. That is where a crime was committed. Well, I stand corrected Democrats do not always vote out the problem. Was this widely published?

    **********************
    Thanks for the credit.

    I don't think Barry's tax evasion was half as well publicized as the famous footage of Hizzoner lighting up. And I can't really explain why it wasn't, other than the possibility that he wasn't considered a hot commodity anymore, or that maybe he wasn't remembered well enough by whomever covered the story. It should have been major news.

    And I agree that on the moral scale, drug addiction isn't as bad as crimes against other people, but I also believe a coke-addled mayor is in a greater position to do harm to his community than the average crackhead.

    Plus, I would hope that the D.C. Dems could come up with at least one candidate with better credentials than a mayor whose taxpayer-funded salary goes up in smoke (or up his nose). Sheesh, you could pretty much walk into a bar, turn in any direction and yell, "Hey, you!" and find someone better qualified.

    Later.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 10 August, 2006 12:30  

  • Mr. Kite posted:

    That doesn't mean anything. You still haven't identified where the picture ran. Once you do that, you can tell me if those places are liberal.


    Please see the list by JD for where those Reuters photos were published. And yes, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the LA Times are all considered liberal, left-wing papers.

    But here's probably the BEST example of the bias in the media:


    Lieberman loses
    Conn. primary race
    Associated Press
    ...
    "They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," a jubilant Lamont told cheering reporters. "Tonight we voted for a big change."
    ...


    CHEERING REPORTERS? Do you think they were a bit enthusiastic for the results of the election? Would conservative reporters cheer the win of Lamont, especially given that most of the GOP is supporting Lieberman?

    Just continue denying that which is patently obvious - the media - by its own admission and it's OWN COVERAGE OF ITSELF - is overwhelmingly liberal.

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 10 August, 2006 15:06  

  • The altered photos would have turned out better if the photographers had purchased and read my book, "Digital Art Photography for Dummies."

    I kid you not there is a book published by this name!

    And...I'm the author

    By Blogger Digital Art Photography for Dummies, at 13 August, 2006 05:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger