Fraudlent Words and Images

Oops. Ironically, Rutten (dispairaging of photo manipulation) proves Arianna’s point while undermining his own credibility on the photo story:

“In this case, turning their own dead children into material creates an opportunity to cloud the fact that every Lebanese casualty, tragic as he or she is, was killed or injured as an unavoidable consequence of Israel's pursuit of terrorists who use their own people as human shields.”

I’m afraid that I find that sort of dishonest propaganda far more troubling and offensive that posing stuffed animals on rubble (assuming that ever even happened). And it far better explains the MSM’s lost credibility.

You miss the point Shep: Arianna and Rutten are on the same side -- they both hate what the traditional media has (and has not) done.

Once upon a time, you could hope that the press would dig down until they found the truth of a matter.

No more.

Whether because of cowardice, politics, corporate allegiance, whatever, those days are gone.

“You miss the point Shep: Arianna and Rutten are on the same side -- they both hate what the traditional media has (and has not) done. ”

Perhaps. But Rutten is picking nits – worrying about real and possible photo manipulation that really doesn’t change anyone’s ability to understand observable reality, i.e., that the IDF bombed the sh*t out of mostly civilian Lebanon. Meanwhile, he perpetrates the disinformation that such destruction was “unavoidable” and that Israel was only pursuing “terrorists.” To me, that far better describes Huffington’s complaint about “deceptive statements, whether they're images or words.”

Look, Republicans “hate what the traditional media has (and has not) done.” What matters is the quality of the truth (or untruth) of the matter. Giant steaming piles of elephant sh*t (Rutten’s words) matter much more than slightly misleading bullsh*t (the Reuters photos).

Otherwise, I completely agree with this:

“Once upon a time, you could hope that the press would dig down until they found the truth of a matter.

No more.

Whether because of cowardice, politics, corporate allegiance, whatever, those days are gone."

And I think it’s mostly internalized political bias.

I'm reading this paper called The Changing Face Of War (I've linked to it elsewhere). Here's a passage that jumped out at me when I read it the first time:

Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through manipulation of the media, particularly television news. Some terrorists already know how to play this game. More broadly, hostile forces could easily take advantage of a significant product of television reporting — the fact that on television the enemy's casualties can be almost as devastating on the home front as are friendly casualties. If we bomb an enemy city, the pictures of enemy civilian dead brought into every living room in the country on the evening news can easily turn what may have been a military success (assuming we also hit the military target) into a serious defeat.

Note that the authors do not imply that terrorists would purposely put civilians in harm's way. Nor do they suggest that terrorists would fake the circumstances of their deaths.

But with so much at stake, I believe that there is a HUGE incentive to do all that and much, much worse.

At least since Mathew Brady.

Now we get our reality check in real time, instead of days, weeks or months.

Thank God that it still moves us to reject what it represents. When it doesn’t, it’s over.

I hear you.