NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.

Who doesn't believe in media bias?

...was wondering the same meself.

On the article: Seems like another case of " Omg the communists! " :rolleyes: Idiots.

Who doesn't believe in media bias?

Liberals :p

The problem with your bias is like the authors bias.

The woman with the yellow star is giving directions? I see the guy holding the banner giving directions.

So what if the photo was cropped?

Do you seriously belive this dialog

Dirty commie: Hey you black kid. Put on the people of color against the war mask
Black Kid: SURE!

The blogger is reading a great deal into the picture as well.....

Ahh well the dirty liberal commie anti american anti religion media myth livies on.....

so who doesn't believe in miedia bias(ness) Take FOX news in the us.

:cool: :sniper:
this is, say Bob, from Arkansas (D) FOX news

Now on the other hand there's always FOX news watchers say the same as CNN, just vice versa:

:cool: :sniper:
D. Cheney CNN

I just think it all comes down to the people who actually run the stations, as FOX news gets funds from G. Bush's campaign, he goes w/ the guy who gives him money. Easy.
(not really)
which newstations do you think are bias?:confused:

Canada City']Liberals :p
I see. This is a straw man isn't it? I thought liberals don't believe in a liberal biased media. Almost all media outlets are biased but I don't think liberals would argue otherwise. However they would argue that the media isn't mostly liberal.

I see. This is a straw man isn't it? I thought liberals don't believe in a liberal biased media. Almost all media outlets are biased but I don't think liberals would argue otherwise. However they would argue that the media isn't mostly liberal.

True media is biased. They are biased towards making money.

Most of the US media is corporate owned now......

True media is biased. They are biased towards making money.

Most of the US media is corporate owned now......
and the outlets that aren't, Karl Rove wants to get rid of, or alter their content to favor more conservative views

and the outlets that aren't, Karl Rove wants to get rid of, or alter their content to favor more conservative views
thank god for indymedia right?

True media is biased. They are biased towards making money.

And non-privatised media?

And non-privatised media?
I don't know. Does the BBC count? Indymedia certainly does and that's extremely biased. I don't think jounalists can ever be objective being human and all.

Does the BBC count? Indymedia certainly does and that's extremely biased.

Thats for sure. Democracy Now! While somewhat interesting, drives me nuts with the peace-nik bias.

Canada City']http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.


So, which message is being changed?

That this person was at an anti-war rally?

Are you suggesting that this person is NOT a person of colour against the war? Or that because they were also part of another specific group that one part of their message and/or platform makes the other a non-issue? You can't speak from the standpoint of your ethnic background AND with your political affiliation at the same time?

Or, because this person was seemingly from one of the fringe groups at the rally the photo should not have been used of them at all? Or have a big "Warning : Fringe Commie MoFo" label attached to it?

Or, are you suggesting as that site did that because the group included an older person organizing the march that the statement that young people were invloved somehow is not true?


I am perplexed.


Exactly WHAT message given by the newspaper in theior article has this particular image been erroneously used to portray?

Canada City']http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.

the mesage that was changed being?

the one the paper ran looks like a rather standard journo shot of masked-up radical youth. they run similar shots all the time, because they make better photos than lame 'small group' shots. you go for either individual shots or 'omg this crowd is huge' shots.

So...they cropped a picture... :rolleyes:

So...they cropped a picture... :rolleyes:

they didn't even crop a picture. they took a close-up. the guy with the website happened to have a picture of the same girl in a larger group (rcp, probably?) they seem to think that was the important part of the story that should have been photographed.

Things I Learned from This:

1. Anyone who wears "terrorist-style bandannas" is a terrorist, communist or both.
2. A woman standing in front of some people is obviously "stage managing" them.
3. All newspapers are biased in favor of liberals.
4. Communism is liberal.
5. All liberals are communists.
6. Opposing war is the activity of terrorists managed by communists, not true Americans.
7. "People of color" is a euphemism for terrorist-communist-liberal.
8. San Francisco is a hotbed for those terrorist-communist-liberal-black people.

Yes, this has truly been educational. I'm glad people like the guy on zombietime are here to telepathically inform and warn us of the new Babylon and how it must be destroyed by fire. God's Fire! Only the Wrath of God can save us from gays, communists, terrorists, liberals, teenagers, peace activists, the liberal media and of course, black people. Amen! ;)

Things I Learned from This:

1. Anyone who wears "terrorist-style bandannas" is a terrorist, communist or both.
2. A woman standing in front of some people is obviously "stage managing" them.
3. All newspapers are biased in favor of liberals.
4. Communism is liberal.
5. All liberals are communists.
6. Opposing war is the activity of terrorists managed by communists, not true Americans.
7. "People of color" is a euphemism for terrorist-communist-liberal.
8. San Francisco is a hotbed for those terrorist-communist-liberal-black people.

Yes, this has truly been educational. I'm glad people like the guy on zombietime are here to telepathically inform and warn us of the new Babylon and how it must be destroyed by fire. God's Fire! Only the Wrath of God can save us from gays, communists, terrorists, liberals, teenagers, peace activists, the liberal media and of course, black people. Amen! ;)


Wow! You're good!

All I learned from it was:

1.) The originating poster's tin-foil hat needs replacement.
2.) So does the one worn by the author of that "critique"


But I can see where you picked up that other stuff too.....

Canada City']http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.

You know you've struck a nerve when they fall back into complete denial or break out the list of ways you are prejudice against them. Good job!
I used to work in the field at the KC Star and Houston Chronicle and got to see a number of ways they do it first hand. The most interesting was when Jimmy Carter kicked all Irainian citizens out of the US I was sent to a location a few blocks from the Chronicle to cover what I was told was a large protest. I went to the location and found nothing going on so I went back to my editor who was a bit ticked at my inexperience. He decided to show me the ropes and got a photographer and we all three went down there. We went into a small restraunt where there 8 college students in two booths that quickly grabbed their signs and ran outside to begin their protest.
At that point I was somewhat at a loss and quite disillusioned with my job, but went through the motions and asked the generic questions I was told to ask while the photographer snapped 20 or 30 photographs from every imaginable angle.
By the time the morning paper rolled out, what I figured was going to be a section B filler turned out to be a page one quarter page article with a photo of dozens of protestors with hundreds of spectators in the background, the by-line was credited to the editors newly created pen name and the only original portion of the article that remained, was the opening sentence. To be kind he credited me at the end of that piece of fiction as a contributing reporter. (Now you know where the newbies get their recognition)

In fairness though, it is not always the press itself that doctors stories. With the new corporate model, the special interest itself takes care of the photography and answers the generic questions on a press release form. They in turn send it off as a press release or forward it to a group like Media Matters, who submit it for them to cause friendly publications that will carry it without question. This saves the newspaper the cost of having investigate reporters, photographers and honest editors, with the only thing being lost is the truth.

Despite what they tell you always remember. Journalism is not a profession. Doctors, Lawyers, Plumbers, Contractors, and Hookers require credentials such as a license or certificate to operate in their field. Journalists do not, no matter what they claim.

You know you've struck a nerve when they fall back into complete denial or break out the list of ways you are prejudice against them. Good job!

Yeah, it could be they're striking a nerve at me since I must be a liberal. Or it could be that this is just stupid partisan mudslinging about the same old "liberal media" bullshit, as if political bias is the sole possession of the "left" (whoever the fuck they are). And maybe it's not psychological "denial" but, ya know, actual refutation of the 'arguments' through rhetoric which exposes the ridiculous 'logic.'

Or maybe I'm just a communist terrorist black liberal teenage peace activist! I'm sure you think anyone who disagrees with the original post is already "liberal," right?

Or maybe "they" just struck a nerve since you can't even address what anyone else says but have to go on a big generalized rant about "them" and "they" and patting your butt-buddy on the back because you think you've scored big with some utterly logical copy-and-paste URL argument.

You know you've struck a nerve when they fall back into complete denial or break out the list of ways you are prejudice against them. Good job!


WOWWwwwww your forearms must be gigantic with all the time you spend patting yourself on the back.

It's really easy to sweep away arguments with denial and prejudice when you can't counter argue. Hmmmm sounds like your nerves was struck.

So how long did you work for the papers.

Just because it wasn't your thing doesn't discredit journalism. Hmmm Murrow was really a hack right? :rolleyes:

Yeah, it could be they're striking a nerve at me since I must be a liberal.

Personally, I couldn't care less what you are, but your the list of things you claim to have glened from an accurate demonstration of how simple photo manipulation can portray whatever the manipulator wishes, leads one to believe that you have no other defense of this propaganda techinque, short of complete denial, discredit or malicious allegations. The shear anger and refusal to even acknowlege this technique is a common tool serve to betray your position without the slightest help at all from me.

As for the rest of my post, it was a description of how the media in general manipulates the truth, without reference to political orientation. You simply dismiss it outright, suggesting that once again, you choose others believe this is not a valid tool of manipulation. You are very transparent and ineffective in your positon on this matter.

I'm confused.. who's arguing for and against bias here?

WOWWwwwww your forearms must be gigantic with all the time you spend patting yourself on the back.

It's really easy to sweep away arguments with denial and prejudice when you can't counter argue. Hmmmm sounds like your nerves was struck.

So how long did you work for the papers.

Just because it wasn't your thing doesn't discredit journalism. Hmmm Murrow was really a hack right? :rolleyes:

How does one counter a counter argument of "so they cropped a photo?" While completely ignoring the obvious manipulation of it? That is called denial, it is not an argument.

Six years at the Star and four at the Chronicle. I don't have to discredit journalism, the corporate model combined with JS professors have done it very well all by their lonesome. Of course some journalists are honest in their work, the problem lies with editors and the policy makers at their respective parent companies. Believe it or not, there are now only 9 sources of information left in the printed daily media. The chances of your local newspaper being owned by a local company are virtually zero.
Murrow was around a long time before the corporate take over was allowed to happen and had a big enough name to prevent editor manipulation. That said the larger names in the media today, do not get there without agreeing to be exactly that.
Next lesson: How many big name media icons are related to high level political appointees and never saw the inside of a news room until such appointment was made!

Canada City']http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.
As long as we live in a capitalist economy, the media will distort to make a "good story!"

Remember, if it doesn't bleed, then it doesn't lead.

How does one counter a counter argument of "so they cropped a photo?" While completely ignoring the obvious manipulation of it?

what manipulation? are you annoyed that they didn't show that not only was there one person expressing certain sentiments, but a whole group of them?

How does one counter a counter argument of "so they cropped a photo?" While completely ignoring the obvious manipulation of it? That is called denial, it is not an argument.

Six years at the Star and four at the Chronicle. I don't have to discredit journalism, the corporate model combined with JS professors have done it very well all by their lonesome. Of course some journalists are honest in their work, the problem lies with editors and the policy makers at their respective parent companies. Believe it or not, there are now only 9 sources of information left in the printed daily media. The chances of your local newspaper being owned by a local company are virtually zero.
Murrow was around a long time before the corporate take over was allowed to happen and had a big enough name to prevent editor manipulation. That said the larger names in the media today, do not get there without agreeing to be exactly that.
Next lesson: How many big name media icons are related to high level political appointees and never saw the inside of a news room until such appointment was made!
I'm still confused.. all they did was crop the picture.. just because the march was organised by a communist doesn't change anything unless you're going to argue that they we're forced to protest. Still, no one disagrees that the media is biased, only that it isn't disproportionatly in the favour of the liberals.

As long as we live in a capitalist economy, the media will distort to make a "good story!"

Remember, if it doesn't bleed, then it doesn't lead.

I almost agree, however I believe that corporate media should be broken up and not allowed to consolidate.

I wonder who will acknowledge:

- That these teenagers are being led by a woman who obviously sympathizes with communism, the social/economic system that has killed over a hundred million people through starvation, malnutrition, insufficient health care, poor housing, poor upkeep of utilities, wars, etc., and continues to deny people basic human rights and political freedoms today?
- That there are several Palestinian flags flying in the background? You know, the country that pays suicide bombers' families twenty thousand dollars a boom?
- That there is a sign right behind this girl's head that says "Fuck War, Fuck Bush, (Fuck) da system?"
- That this guy is exactly right when he wrote, "...the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn't tell you the whole truth?"

Why are so many people not upset that this rally wasn't depicted as the racist, hate filled march it was? If some military families staged a pro-war rally and Fox showed the smiling face of a young boy holding up a picture of his father in uniform, but there were signs like "Fuck Hippies, Fuck Islam, (Fuck) da terrorists" that the photographer didn't show, you apes would be shreaking at the top of your lungs.

I'm still confused.. all they did was crop the picture.. just because the march was organised by a communist doesn't change anything unless you're going to argue that they we're forced to protest. Still, no one disagrees that the media is biased, only that it isn't disproportionatly in the favour of the liberals.

Look at the background.

I wonder who will acknowledge:

- That these teenagers are being led by a woman who obviously sympathizes with communism, the social/economic system that has killed over a hundred million people through starvation, malnutrition, insufficient health care, poor housing, poor upkeep of utilities, wars, etc., and continues to deny people basic human rights and political freedoms today?
- That there are several Palestinian flags flying in the background? You know, the country that pays suicide bombers' families twenty thousand dollars a boom?
- That there is a sign right behind this girl's head that says "Fuck War, Fuck Bush, (Fuck) da system?"
- That this guy is exactly right when he wrote, "...the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn't tell you the whole truth?"

Why are so many people not upset that this rally wasn't depicted as the racist, hate filled march it was? If some military families staged a pro-war rally and Fox showed the smiling face of a young boy holding up a picture of his father in uniform, but there were signs like "Fuck Hippies, Fuck Islam, (Fuck) da terrorists" that the photographer didn't show, you apes would be shreaking at the top of your lungs.
Firstly, ideas don't kill people. People kill people. If Americans weren't so afraid of the left then cutting out some communist bint out of the picture wouldn't have been nessacary but instead she has to go because you'd think that here mere presence undermines the whole protest. It doesn't and it's rather silly to think so.

Secondly, that whole Israel isn't a black and white issue and Palestine as a whole doesn't pay suicide bombers but rather a fanatical minority.

Thirdly, whilst many people could write lengthy critiquesof the failings of capitalism and Bush's policies it's alot simply and much easier to fit "Fuck Bush!" on a placade.

How does one counter a counter argument of "so they cropped a photo?" While completely ignoring the obvious manipulation of it? That is called denial, it is not an argument.


As an ex-journalist, do you automattically assume that a woman standing beside the rode wearing a possible communist shirt set up the protest and is running the show?

As an ex-journalist, you have to admit that anti-war/goverment protests usually invovle mulitple groups.

As an ex-journalist, did you notice the blogger had selective photos as well.

As an ex-journalist, care to read the article and explain the bias in the story?

As an ex-journalist, do you admit that if the chron had simply run the full photo; the words on the masks would have been lost?

Do you blindly accept everything as true simply because it conforms to your bias?

Look at the background.
I did. It proves that this particular paper is biased in favour of the liberals but it doesn't prove that there's a huge conspiracy. All media is biased. What's your point?

<snip>
nice argument, but don't bother responding. I was going to, but i figured 1) he wouldn't read it or 2) if he did, he wouldn't care, or 3) he still wouldn't read it, but would reply with something equally as arrogant as his original post

Why are so many people not upset that this rally wasn't depicted as the racist, hate filled march it was?

because we aren't delusional?

Look at the background.

what about it?

I wonder who will acknowledge:

- That these teenagers are being led by a woman who obviously sympathizes with communism, the social/economic system that has killed over a hundred million people through starvation, malnutrition, insufficient health care, poor housing, poor upkeep of utilities, wars, etc., and continues to deny people basic human rights and political freedoms today?


And this has what to do with anti-war rally? Never mind the fact you don't know if she is the leader of the protest. Even the blogger said she might be wearing a communist shirt.


- That there are several Palestinian flags flying in the background? You know, the country that pays suicide bombers' families twenty thousand dollars a boom?

Actually that was Iraq and there Isralis have done nasty things as well. There is clear victim in that ongoing story.


- That there is a sign right behind this girl's head that says "Fuck War, Fuck Bush, (Fuck) da system?"


Freedom of Speech is a bitch isn't it?


- That this guy is exactly right when he wrote, "...the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn't tell you the whole truth?"

What did they omit? The fact there was some commies in the protest? The fact they left out dirty words?

Should the story list out every group involved? I bet if they printed the dirty language you would have bitched about that.


Why are so many people not upset that this rally wasn't depicted as the racist, hate filled march it was?


Racist? How? Palistine? Don't you think it's rather racist to assume terrorism because of a mask? Not all the fighters are suicide bombers. Not all the fighters go out of their way to kill women and children. You have good and bad people on both sides of the fight.


If some military families staged a pro-war rally and Fox showed the smiling face of a young boy holding up a picture of his father in uniform, but there were signs like "Fuck Hippies, Fuck Islam, (Fuck) da terrorists" that the photographer didn't show, you apes would be shreaking at the top of your lungs.

Try reading the story and show where this evil liberal bias is......

what about it?

There are commies and terrorists in there. Don't you know you are supposed to ignore their opinions?

Firstly, ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

Point out a truly communist government that worked without doing something like executing all of their homosexuals or starving their population to force them to literally evolve, and I'll be happy to believe that.

If Americans weren't so afraid of the left then cutting out some communist bint out of the picture wouldn't have been nessacary but instead she has to go because you'd think that here mere presence undermines the whole protest. It doesn't and it's rather silly to think so.

Americans are afraid of the left? Since when? Half the country is liberal. If an anti-war march has been organized by communists and supporters of Palestine, and that's the true nature of the rally, why not call it a pro-communist, pro-Palestine march instead? Is the truth so sinful that it has to be buried behind the shrouded face of a teenage girl?

Secondly, that whole Israel isn't a black and white issue and Palestine as a whole doesn't pay suicide bombers but rather a fanatical minority.

On the day of Netanya, Abbas announced that he was giving part of the Palestinian budget to benefit the families of suicide bombers and terrorists serving time in Israeli jail. (http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1397)

Thirdly, whilst many people could write lengthy critiquesof the failings of capitalism and Bush's policies it's alot simply and much easier to fit "Fuck Bush!" on a placade.

So if I walked out with a placard that said, "Fuck MLK" today, no problem?

Canada City']http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.

As if ALL of Mr. Bush's public appearances aren't "stage managed"!
For all you know, she could be saying "We got you guys subs 'this big' for lunch".
And since when is a bandanna a "terrorist" article of clothing?
I'd wear one too to make it harder for the fascist republicans to keep an NSA file on me for exercising my 1st Amendment rights!

Point out a truly communist government that worked
I would if one had even existed

And this has what to do with anti-war rally? Never mind the fact you don't know if she is the leader of the protest. Even the blogger said she might be wearing a communist shirt.

It's a bright red shirt with a big yellow star on the back.

Actually that was Iraq and there Isralis have done nasty things as well. There is clear victim in that ongoing story.

Responded to this above. If it's supposed to be an anti-war protest, what are flags doing there of a country that overwhelmingly supports terrorism?

Freedom of Speech is a bitch isn't it?

Not at all, fuck you very much.

What did they omit? The fact there was some commies in the protest? The fact they left out dirty words?

Yes. Are you ashamed that it wasn't just youthful, black, shrouded faces at this rally? Why not accept, or even be proud, that people who support Palestine and people who write things like "Fuck Bush" in public view are on your side? Why try to hide them with positive spin if they are your allies except out of shame?

Should the story list out every group involved? I bet if they printed the dirty language you would have bitched about that.

Racist? How? Palistine? Don't you think it's rather racist to assume terrorism because of a mask? Not all the fighters are suicide bombers. Not all the fighters go out of their way to kill women and children. You have good and bad people on both sides of the fight.

Heh, this was supposedly a peace rally, and this girl dresses like a Palestinian "fighter." Terrorist, rebel, freedom fighter, however you want to spin it - she's a walking contradiction in that she's dressed up for war, and supposedly demonstrating for peace.

Try reading the story and show where this evil liberal bias is......

Right here. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?m=/c/pictures/2005/09/25/ba_sfwcprotest419se.jpg&f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMO81.DTL)

Point out a truly communist government that worked without doing something like executing all of their homosexuals or starving their population to force them to literally evolve, and I'll be happy to believe that.

Again it was the dictators that killed them, not the idea, besides, don't you know there's never been a truely communist country?

Americans are afraid of the left? Since when? Half the country is liberal. If an anti-war march has been organized by communists and supporters of Palestine, and that's the true nature of the rally, why not call it a pro-communist, pro-Palestine march instead? Is the truth so sinful that it has to be buried behind the shrouded face of a teenage girl?
If you're trying to imply that liberal equals left you're mistaken. The American liberals is the equivelent to centre in the rest of the world. They ain't left-wing. It was an anti-war march. Just because a small part of it was organised by communists doesn't make it an pro-communist march. They we're Black Bloc(ers) present too does that make it a pro-anarchist march? Are you really saying that all 20,000 people protesting are communists?



On the day of Netanya, Abbas announced that he was giving part of the Palestinian budget to benefit the families of suicide bombers and terrorists serving time in Israeli jail. (http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1397)

Like I said, only a minority gives out money to terrorists.



So if I walked out with a placard that said, "Fuck MLK" today, no problem?
Would you not be practising your right to free speech?

It's a bright red shirt with a big yellow star on the back.

Granted. But what is the text on the front? Even if she is a communist why does it matter? The communist party is not illegal in this country.


Responded to this above. If it's supposed to be an anti-war protest, what are flags doing there of a country that overwhelmingly supports terrorism?

Again the bias of the blogger. Did you look at all his other shots? Not that many Pali flags.

Again many groups at a war rally. They even had anarchists there.....


Yes. Are you ashamed that it wasn't just youthful, black, shrouded faces at this rally? Why not accept, or even be proud, that people who support Palestine and people who write things like "Fuck Bush" in public view are on your side? Why try to hide them with positive spin if they are your allies except out of shame?


You overlook the intent. It was for affect and it worked on you.

As to the paper? They really can't go publishing naughty words now can they?


Heh, this was supposedly a peace rally, and this girl dresses like a Palestinian "fighter." Terrorist, rebel, freedom fighter, however you want to spin it - she's a walking contradiction in that she's dressed up for war, and supposedly demonstrating for peace.


Look at the other photos as well. You are basing the whole rally from one group and one communist shirt.

Rally's attract any nut job. Unfortunatly you can't exclude people from a protest.....

It's a bright red shirt with a big yellow star on the back.
whoopdeedoo :rolleyes:

Not at all, fuck you very much.



Yes. Are you ashamed that it wasn't just youthful, black, shrouded faces at this rally? Why not accept, or even be proud, that people who support Palestine and people who write things like "Fuck Bush" in public view are on your side?
Better that than have people who write stupid shit like you do.

it does kinda look like the revolutionary communist party was involved in that protest... wacky old gang of four east bay(originally) maoists. i always kinda like them. as for the picture, they are all editted all the time by the media. was the cropping a liberal ploy to hide the communist involvement or a conservative ploy to deny the communists media coverage and credit for their organizing?

Again it was the dictators that killed them, not the idea, besides, don't you know there's never been a truely communist country?

That's actually exactly my point, because communism can't function in the real world. The idea of communism has always bred dictators and one party governments, and they've always done a terrible job managing their resources and making decisions, often at the expense of massive amounts of human life.

If you're trying to imply that liberal equals left you're mistaken. The American liberals is the equivelent to centre in the rest of the world. They ain't left-wing. It was an anti-war march. Just because a small part of it was organised by communists doesn't make it an pro-communist march. They we're Black Bloc(ers) present too does that make it a pro-anarchist march?

Sure. Why not ask them to leave? Why not confront them and tell them that their voices aren't welcome? These guys get beaten up, shut up and kicked out of marches all the time. (http://www.protestwarrior.com/) Go ahead, click around and watch a couple of their videos.

Are you really saying that all 20,000 people protesting are communists?

Certainly not, but these are. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=1&f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMO81.DTL)

Like I said, only a minority gives out money to terrorists.

Like Mahmoud Abbas said, he's paying the families of suicide bombers and terrorists with tax payer money.

Would you not be practising your right to free speech?
I was hoping to bait you into some hypocrisy with that one, I admit it. At least your consistent, but I think vulgar statements like that don't belong within eyeshot of decent people. "Bush lied," "Bush is a terrorist," sure, fine, go ahead, but "Fuck Bush?" I personally feel that it's just juvenile, in poor taste, and should be offensive to everyone, regardless of their opinion of President Bush. But the guy can hold his sign up.

whoopdeedoo :rolleyes:

Better that than have people who write stupid shit like you do.

That's just flaming.

That's just flaming.
as opposed to the cute little, "fuck you" you offered up earlier?

Granted. But what is the text on the front? Even if she is a communist why does it matter? The communist party is not illegal in this country.

Then why try to hide her and not show what Ms. Williams was surrounded and directed by?

Again the bias of the blogger. Did you look at all his other shots? Not that many Pali flags.

There's one hanging over the shoulder of one of the people holding the same banner as Miss Williams. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/IMG_2152.JPG)

Again many groups at a war rally. They even had anarchists there.....

Heehee, peace protest. It gets funnier every time I say it.

You overlook the intent. It was for affect and it worked on you.

What effect? Making me even more disgusted with the anti-war movement? Yep, mission accomplished for that guy.

As to the paper? They really can't go publishing naughty words now can they?

But they can show these protesters for who they really are - communists, terrorist supporters, racists, moonbats.

Look at the other photos as well. You are basing the whole rally from one group and one communist shirt.

Rally's attract any nut job. Unfortunatly you can't exclude people from a protest.....

...unless they're right wing. (http://www.protestwarrior.com/videos/eagle_strike.php)

But they can show these protesters for who they really are - communists, terrorist supporters, racists, moonbats.


The fact that you don't see that what you said there is a more extreme form of bias than almost anything in the media undermines your entire argument.

What you said there HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "just the facts," and is 100% hyperbole and opinion. It's bloviating nonsense.

That's actually exactly my point, because communism can't function in the real world. The idea of communism has always bred dictators and one party governments, and they've always done a terrible job managing their resources and making decisions, often at the expense of massive amounts of human life.

I'll disagree with you but only slightly.. It's the form of large, beaurocratic, centralised government that plagues communist theory that is responsible for the corruption and dictators..



Sure. Why not ask them to leave? Why not confront them and tell them that their voices aren't welcome? These guys get beaten up, shut up and kicked out of marches all the time. (http://www.protestwarrior.com/) Go ahead, click around and watch a couple of their videos.

Anti-war voices are welcome at anti-war protests. Pro-war voices aren't. It's not right to kick the shit out of them but it really is that simple.


Certainly not, but these are. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=1&f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMO81.DTL)

You're not famililar with the activist scene are you? Most protests also used for the purposes of networking and stuff. No doubt they had pro-communist leaflets to hand out. These kind of protests rarely achieve anything but are good publicity for whatever cause youre a part of.

Like Mahmoud Abbas said, he's paying the families of suicide bombers and terrorists with tax payer money.

He's a politician. What do you expect?


I was hoping to bait you into some hypocrisy with that one, I admit it. At least your consistent, but I think vulgar statements like that don't belong within eyeshot of decent people. "Bush lied," "Bush is a terrorist," sure, fine, go ahead, but "Fuck Bush?" I personally feel that it's just juvenile, in poor taste, and should be offensive to everyone, regardless of their opinion of President Bush. But the guy can hold his sign up.
They we're teenagers after all.

Silly non-story in my opinion, but let me adress some points:

The Chronicle apparently did not crop the picture.
Please note that I do not claim that the Chronicle cropped its photograph, which is obviously a high-resolution close-up and thus not cropped much, if at all

If you haven't already, you should read the response offered by the Chronicle. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/02/EDGR9EVTDP1.DTL&hw=dick+rogers&sn=001&sc=1000)
Excerpt:
Set aside the contention that The Chronicle photo was a politically driven effort to distort (which would have involved at least one senior editor, the photo editor, the photographer, the layout desk and probably a handful of other co-conspirators). Consider just this: The allegedly more honest picture shows the protester at a distance, part of a group of similar demonstrators who could be seen, but were little more than part of a crowd. The Chronicle photograph closes in tightly on the teenager, riveting the reader on the bandanna mask, the steely-eyed gaze and the raised, clinched fist -- which the other picture doesn't show at all.

So The Chronicle photo didn't exactly shout "Middle America." It was far more dramatic and displayed the protester in far more detail. If the newspaper was setting out to "de-radicalize" the scene, it did a pretty lame job. If the paper wants to sanitize a protest, it should forget tight shots of radicals in disguise and go for pictures of suburban moms with young children. Now that's centrist.

As for the picture not telling "the whole truth": No picture could possibly tell the whole truth about the entire demonstration. The blogger needs to use multiple photos himself to get his point across - only using a single picture of his pictures would not tell "his" truth.

As for bias: Because the whole truth -- that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards
That was the whole truth, was it? Seems to me to be some assumptions here, and some biased language...

So, my opinion: Silliness to be ignored.

Wow you really do have issues of the commies. How old are you?

Then why try to hide her and not show what Ms. Williams was surrounded and directed by?


What about this dirty commie and her little suicide bomber?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=4&f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMO81.DTL

They staged it right? Or are they hiding the pro-gay sayings and profanity on the boys shirt right?


There's one hanging over the shoulder of one of the people holding the same banner as Miss Williams. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/IMG_2152.JPG)


And again so? Again you are discrediting the whole from what 100?, a 1000? 20000 people where there.


What effect? Making me even more disgusted with the anti-war movement? Yep, mission accomplished for that guy.


For some reason I doubt you would listen to any message about Iraq. After all the shrub never lies or hides anything right?


But they can show these protesters for who they really are - communists, terrorist supporters, racists, moonbats.


Ok spot the terrorist and commies please.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=8&f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMO81.DTL

Unless of course anybody that goes against the shrub is a commie terrorist right?


...unless they're right wing. (http://www.protestwarrior.com/videos/eagle_strike.php)

Now that's funny. No bias there....... :D

Again many groups at a war rally. They even had anarchists there.....


Heehee, peace protest. It gets funnier every time I say it.

Yes peace protest. Anarchism is among the most peaceful political theories. They really don't like violence, those anarchist don't. Something about how violence is forcing your authority over someone and they ain't too big on that.

The fact that you don't see that what you said there is a more extreme form of bias than almost anything in the media undermines your entire argument.

No, it doesn't. There were communists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/communists/) There were moonbats at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/bds/) There were racists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/signs/IMG_2347.JPG) There were terrorist supporters at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/lone_ranger_fan_club/) But where are these people depicted in the Chronicle's photos, besides as chanting cattle walking down a street with generic placards? Have you read any of these articles or looked at any of the pictures?

What you said there HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "just the facts," and is 100% hyperbole and opinion. It's bloviating nonsense.

You're response is knee jerk at best.

No, it doesn't. There were communists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/communists/) There were moonbats at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/bds/) There were racists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/signs/IMG_2347.JPG) There were terrorist supporters at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/lone_ranger_fan_club/) But where are these people depicted in the Chronicle's photos, besides as chanting cattle walking down a street with generic placards? Have you read any of these articles or looked at any of the pictures?

You're response is knee jerk at best.

Speaking of Knee Jerk....

Unless you can show the majority where those people, there is no crime here.

You discredit the whole thing on the actions of a minority.

Never mind the fact that Freedom of Speech(which you claim to support) says these people can have their say.

Canada City']http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

It's rather interesting that with rather primitive tricks, like cropping, can literally change an entire message.
Of course I believe in media bias. Look, for instance, at the site linked to here. It has a certain message it wants to display, and it does display that message. The Chronicle had a message they wanted to display, and they did.

The problem is that everybody seems to think that 'believing in a media bias' = 'leftist media bias' or 'conservative media bias'. All media that I've seen is biased in one direction or another, but saying that they all are biased to try and brainwash people into supporting one set of views is frankly a bit silly.

No, it doesn't. There were communists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/communists/) There were moonbats at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/bds/) There were racists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/signs/IMG_2347.JPG) There were terrorist supporters at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/lone_ranger_fan_club/) But where are these people depicted in the Chronicle's photos, besides as chanting cattle walking down a street with generic placards? Have you read any of these articles or looked at any of the pictures?



You're response is knee jerk at best.
So you're saying that just because every single group wasn't pointed out the article is biased? I don't suppose you have figures as to the percentage that the communists made up of the protest?

And terrorist supporters? You wear a bandana and that makes you a terrorist? I see three palistinian flags and a bunch of people who may or may not be in a black bloc.

No, it doesn't. There were communists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/communists/) There were moonbats at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/bds/) There were racists at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/signs/IMG_2347.JPG) There were terrorist supporters at the protest. (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/lone_ranger_fan_club/) But where are these people depicted in the Chronicle's photos, besides as chanting cattle walking down a street with generic placards? Have you read any of these articles or looked at any of the pictures?



.

i see the commies(even my old pal the sparts).
i'm not exactly sure what moonbats are.
that isn't as far as i can tell a racist placard in the photo for that link.
bandanas don't make you a terrorist.

But they can show these protesters for who they really are - communists, terrorist supporters, racists, moonbats.
At least they're not pacifists.

I'll disagree with you but only slightly.. It's the form of large, beaurocratic, centralised government that plagues communist theory that is responsible for the corruption and dictators..

So you're saying that Cuba's doing fine?

Anti-war voices are welcome at anti-war protests. Pro-war voices aren't. It's not right to kick the shit out of them but it really is that simple.

Gee, what happened to "freedom of speech?"

You're not famililar with the activist scene are you? Most protests also used for the purposes of networking and stuff. No doubt they had pro-communist leaflets to hand out. These kind of protests rarely achieve anything but are good publicity for whatever cause youre a part of.

That's nice; they were still there and very welcome.

He's a politician. What do you expect?

I expect him not to subsidize suicide bombing, let alone anounce it on the day that a Palestinian detonated himself, killing five people walking by a mall. I don't think that's a wild expectation, do you?

They we're teenagers after all.

Sure. It's a good thing they weren't right wing, eh?

Speaking of Knee Jerk....

Unless you can show the majority where those people, there is no crime here.

Why the Hell do they even have to be the majority? Even if they numbered in the dozens and not easily in the hundreds at this protest, it tells something that these people sympathize together enough to the point where they're willing to protest side by side.

You discredit the whole thing on the actions of a minority.

Prove it.

Never mind the fact that Freedom of Speech(which you claim to support) says these people can have their say.

I do support freedom of speech and I never said that these people should be shut up. Go ahead and show me where I did, or you can shut up about your false accusations and assumptions.

So you're saying that Cuba's doing fine?

No, I'm saying that centralized government is a terrible idea especially when combined with radical ideas requiring major restructuring of culture and economy.



Gee, what happened to "freedom of speech?"

Nothing.. as far as I can tell, the reason protestwarrior are treated they way they are is because they seem to be quite confrontational. When you get to groups with opposing ideas you're going to get trouble.






I expect him not to subsidize suicide bombing, let alone anounce it on the day that a Palestinian detonated himself, killing five people walking by a mall. I don't think that's a wild expectation, do you?

He's a politician. You should expect him to cynically manipulate the people to garner votes without consulting his conscience.


Sure. It's a good thing they weren't right wing, eh?
Makes no difference to me.

i see the commies(even my old pal the sparts).

Good, good.

i'm not exactly sure what moonbats are.

Liberal extremists that help lose elections for democrats.

that isn't as far as i can tell a racist placard in the photo for that link.

Because it's a white guy?

bandanas don't make you a terrorist.

Who else wears bandanas...? Hmm... Let's see... Uh, 1850s train robbers. 1990s Gangsters. Oh, right, and terrorists wear them right before they videotape themselves sawing the heads off truck drivers. Sorry, I really don't believe that these kids were wearing bandanas to sympathize with crop dusters and exterminators.

Why the Hell do they even have to be the majority? Even if they numbered in the dozens and not easily in the hundreds at this protest, it tells something that these people sympathize together enough to the point where they're willing to protest side by side.
Why do you assume that if they protest together, they sympathize? I'd protest an anti-gay-marriage law, even if the majority of people there were authoritarian communists, if I thought there was a chance to change something, and I'm sure not communist.
The only things I'd assume they agree on is things which they've actually acted in accordance with.

Who else wears bandanas...? Hmm... Let's see... Uh, 1850s train robbers. 1990s Gangsters. Oh, right, and terrorists wear them right before they videotape themselves sawing the heads off truck drivers. Sorry, I really don't believe that these kids were wearing bandanas to sympathize with crop dusters and exterminators.
good god, what is wrong with you?

Why the Hell do they even have to be the majority? Even if they numbered in the dozens and not easily in the hundreds at this protest, it tells something that these people sympathize together enough to the point where they're willing to protest side by side.


Guilt by association. It worked for Joe so I guess you would try it....


Prove it.

Don't need to. Your comments already have.


I do support freedom of speech and I never said that these people should be shut up. Go ahead and show me where I did, or you can shut up about your false accusations and assumptions.

You do realise that trying to discredit people with guilt by association is an attempt to stop a message from getting out? Right?

good god, what is wrong with you?

I can't tell if he is serious......

No, I'm saying that centralized government is a terrible idea especially when combined with radical ideas requiring major restructuring of culture and economy.

Mmm, sure.

Nothing.. as far as I can tell, the reason protestwarrior are treated they way they are is because they seem to be quite confrontational. When you get to groups with opposing ideas you're going to get trouble.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. If you watch their videos, they act totally passively, marching quietly in unison or chanting. They don't start fights - people rip their signs out of their hands and attack them from behind. It happens at almost every anti-war rally/pro-palestine march/whatever they attend. About twelve anarchists, which I believe you said was a peaceful belief system, were videotaped beating an old man who had come with the PW in one of their videos.

He's a politician. You should expect him to cynically manipulate the people to garner votes without consulting his conscience.

Expect it, maybe, considering who his constituents are. But I will never approve of it and will never make excuses for the people who support terrorism, whether it's a private charity, a private person, or a sovereign government financing it.

Makes no difference to me.

Mmkay.

good god, what is wrong with you?

He's a pro-establishment dittohead. Overly generalized and simplistic labels are everything to them.

(posted with some irony.)

that isn't as far as i can tell a racist placard in the photo for that link.

Because it's a white guy?

Umm, yeah? How does that make it racist?

I did. It proves that this particular paper is biased in favour of the liberals but it doesn't prove that there's a huge conspiracy. All media is biased. What's your point?

When did I make a claim there was a conspiracy? I didn't make any such claim. I simply congratulated the OP on his drawing out the moonbat deniers armed with nothing to counter it, but their final defense of what you see does not exist, it isn't real, or you are picking on me.
Yes, all media is bias and my point was only to illustrate how they manipulate the truth to form public opinion, and sell more copy from from first hand experience.

:rolleyes: I love the conspiracy theory way that thing's presented in.

You know how Freud once said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? Well, sometimes a yellow star on a red shirt is just a yellow star on a red shirt.

Who else wears bandanas...? Hmm... Let's see... Uh, 1850s train robbers. 1990s Gangsters. Oh, right, and terrorists wear them right before they videotape themselves sawing the heads off truck drivers. Sorry, I really don't believe that these kids were wearing bandanas to sympathize with crop dusters and exterminators.
People who attend protests also wear bandanas so that if they're teargassed, they don't breathe it in as much. They do serve a practical purpose too, you know.

Next you'll be telling us that they wear layers of newspaper under their clothing because they like to keep reminders of the liberal media closeby instead of to help stop rubber bullets.

When did I make a claim there was a conspiracy? I didn't make any such claim. I simply congratulated the OP on his drawing out the moonbat deniers armed with nothing to counter it, but their final defense of what you see does not exist, it isn't real, or you are picking on me.
Yes, all media is bias and my point was only to illustrate how they manipulate the truth to form public opinion, and sell more copy from from first hand experience.

ahhh there is that con sweep aside arguements again......

Guilt by association. It worked for Joe so I guess you would try it....

Heh! You're comparing me to McCarthy? You've got to be joking. Can I invoke the Godwin Law? I guess that makes you worse than OJ Simpson and NAMBLA combined.

Don't need to. Your comments already have.

Prove it, I dare you. I double Goddamn dog dare you. Quote me, show me exactly where I said that the entire protest was illegitimate because some whacky teenagers showed up. I'm defending zombietime's argument that the Chronicle did not depict this protest accurately and white washed some very, very ugly elements that people should also see before making any judgements about what kind of people were among the 20,000 who showed up. Or did you forget that? It wasn't just some mother with a cuddly backpack, it was also people waving American flags upside down. It wasn't just an adorable teenager smiling from behind her Ice Cube bandana, it was people waving Palestinian flags at a peace rally. But how the Hell would anyone know that outside of SanFran if their only source for context was the Chronicle?

You do realise that trying to discredit people with guilt by association is an attempt to stop a message from getting out? Right?

Like the Chronicle stopped the messages of communists, anarchists, and extremists from getting out for fear that they would tarnish the guilded reputations of the pacifists who marched right beside them? Pshaw, I'd think that I should be lauded as a liberty advocate for wanting people to see this stuff, not depicted as Joe McCarthy, comrade.

People who attend protests also wear bandanas so that if they're teargassed, they don't breathe it in as much. They do serve a practical purpose too, you know.

Next you'll be telling us that they wear layers of newspaper under their clothing because they like to keep reminders of the liberal media closeby instead of to help stop rubber bullets.

You know what, that actually makes sense.

Now what were they planning on doing that would provoke the authorities to use tear gas on them?

There is certainly media bias here in Canada. The CBC (government propaganda channel) along with City TV, Global National, CTV, etc... all march to the tune: "America BAD, Canada GOOD". Surge of gun violence in Toronto? Blame it on American guns! What they don't like to tell us is:

Canada's reported violent crime rate of 963 per 100,000 in 2003 more than double the U.S. rate of 475.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051230

Backed Up By
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm (violent crime rate in Canada)

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm (violent crime rate in the USA)

You know what, that actually makes sense.

Now what were they planning on doing that would provoke the authorities to use tear gas on them?
Often they don't do anything. If your'e old enough to have watched coverage of the Quebec City protests a while back, the police were teargassing protestors who were sitting in a drum circle, there were a couple of them dancing in the middle, but they were minding their own business and along comes the teargas.

Of course you have people like the black block who do nothing but provoke the cops, and it's not exactly like teargas is a precision weapon...

There is certainly media bias here in Canada. The CBC (government propaganda channel) along with City TV, Global National, CTV, etc... all march to the tune: "America BAD, Canada GOOD". Surge of gun violence in Toronto? Blame it on American guns! What they don't like to tell us is:

Canada's reported violent crime rate of 963 per 100,000 in 2003 more than double the U.S. rate of 475.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051230

Backed Up By
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm (violent crime rate in Canada)

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm (violent crime rate in the USA)
Canada and the US define violent crime differently.

Heh! You're comparing me to McCarthy? You've got to be joking. Can I invoke the Godwin Law? I guess that makes you worse than OJ Simpson and NAMBLA combined.


Godwin is for Nazi comparisons.

You are the one complaining "They are hiding commies"

You were the one that said

"Why the Hell do they even have to be the majority? Even if they numbered in the dozens and not easily in the hundreds at this protest, it tells something that these people sympathize together enough to the point where they're willing to protest side by side."

That is guilt by association.


Prove it, I dare you. I double Goddamn dog dare you. Quote me, show me exactly where I said that the entire protest was illegitimate because some whacky teenagers showed up.

You didn't but you are rather incensed to make sure everybody knows there are commies, moonbaits and terrorists there.


I'm defending zombietime's argument that the Chronicle did not depict this protest accurately and white washed some very, very ugly elements that people should also see before making any judgements about what kind of people were among the 20,000 who showed up. Or did you forget that?


Ok 100 out of 20000. Ok I will give you 1000 out of 20000.

What you want to see is that people see a small amount of people and think the rest of the same!

Again guilt by association.



It wasn't just some mother with a cuddly backpack, it was also people waving American flags upside down. It wasn't just an adorable teenager smiling from behind her Ice Cube bandana, it was people waving Palestinian flags at a peace rally. But how the Hell would anyone know that outside of SanFran if their only source for context was the Chronicle?


What part of 20000 people do you fail to understand? So somebody with a blog is more accurate? The Chron may have some agenda but so does this blogger. And you for that matter.


Like the Chronicle stopped the messages of communists, anarchists, and extremists from getting out for fear that they would tarnish the guilded reputations of the pacifists who marched right beside them? Pshaw, I'd think that I should be lauded as a liberty advocate for wanting people to see this stuff, not depicted as Joe McCarthy, comrade.

Ahhh guilt by association again.

I'd just like to say to whoever was calling us terrorists, lawbreakers, whatever, that I always wear a bandana on any political march due to the fact that the police have a nasty little habit of filming protestors and taking our pictures, as do fascists (ever hear of redwatch?). For me it's a matter of privacy and security

As the Chronicle itself pointed out a few posts back, if it was trying to de-radicalize the protest, then showing a bandana clad protester with her fist in the air was a poor choice at best. The irony is that the percieved bias is seen through a lense of bias.

What's worse is that pictures in the media are used to create false context, a lot. This just doesn't happen to be one of those cases. It's part of a pattern I see a lot, taking a legitimate claim and screaming a mirrored, less legitimate one in concert to drown out the issue. It's depressing that this is what constitutes discourse.

Who else wears bandanas...?

me

As the Chronicle itself pointed out a few posts back, if it was trying to de-radicalize the protest, then showing a bandana clad protester with her fist in the air was a poor choice at best.

yeah, i've been trying to figure out what the alleged liberal distortion was - that there were more commies than just the one?

You know what, that actually makes sense.

Now what were they planning on doing that would provoke the authorities to use tear gas on them?
Of course the protesters they MUST have done something or planed something :rolleyes:

Actually, the exact opposite is true. If you watch their videos, they act totally passively, marching quietly in unison or chanting. They don't start fights - people rip their signs out of their hands and attack them from behind. It happens at almost every anti-war rally/pro-palestine march/whatever they attend. About twelve anarchists, which I believe you said was a peaceful belief system, were videotaped beating an old man who had come with the PW in one of their videos.


Just finished watching their videos and it would be honor to shake the hands of those people.

If it's alright for people to say "Fuck Bush" at Bush's speeches or wield anti-bush signs, why can't pro-war people be against anti-war groups? From the videos I've seen, with communists to violent protesters (and burning flags), it makes me wonder if the liberals in America are suffering from sort of mental disease. I have never, ever seen a Canadian up here willing to burn their own flag or resort to nazism or communism just to go against the government. I wonder if this behavior is exclusive only in the states?

Canada City']I have never, ever seen a Canadian up here willing to burn their own flag or resort to nazism or communism just to go against the government. I wonder if this behavior is exclusive only in the states?
Up here we don't seem to put so much emphasis on the flag though. Hell, in the states they pledge allegiance to the damn thing.

Canada City']Just finished watching their videos and it would be honor to shake the hands of those people.

If it's alright for people to say "Fuck Bush" at Bush's speeches or wield anti-bush signs, why can't pro-war people be against anti-war groups? From the videos I've seen, with communists to violent protesters (and burning flags), it makes me wonder if the liberals in America are suffering from sort of mental disease. I have never, ever seen a Canadian up here willing to burn their own flag or resort to nazism or communism just to go against the government. I wonder if this behavior is exclusive only in the states?
Perhaps American liberals are just not caught in an arrogant, blinding Nationalism as most other conservatives are.

Perhaps American liberals are just not caught in an arrogant, blinding Nationalism as most other conservatives are.

True or not, why is this behavior not seen in Canada yet in the states, these 'peaceful protesters' look like something that came out of the nazi video archives?

And bare my 'bias opinion', but that is the first thing I thought of when I see palestine flags flying overhead and people saying "It's alright to hate bush" using a loud microphone. That isn't something a peaceful organization would say or do.

Personally, I couldn't care less what you are, but your the list of things you claim to have glened from an accurate demonstration of how simple photo manipulation can portray whatever the manipulator wishes, leads one to believe that you have no other defense of this propaganda techinque,

I am not "defending" a "propaganda technique." I am indeed DENYING that this means the media is biased towards the liberal side of things. I am also refuting by way of mockery the obvious viewpoints of the writer of that "demonstration." For example, the assumptions made (stage manager?) and implications (terrorist-style bandanas?). The fact that the only thing YOU had to say about all this is "haha you struck a nerve, good job!" shows me your argument is little more than mindless trolling.

short of complete denial, discredit or malicious allegations

Interestingly enough, discredit and malicious allegations made up a substantial portion of the "demonstration." But it's always OK when it supports your partisan bent, right?

. The shear anger and refusal to even acknowlege this technique is a common tool serve to betray your position without the slightest help at all from me.

Stupidity angers me. It doesn't mean my "position" is "betrayed." You're going to have to work a bit harder there.


As for the rest of my post, it was a description of how the media in general manipulates the truth, without reference to political orientation. You simply dismiss it outright, suggesting that once again, you choose others believe this is not a valid tool of manipulation. You are very transparent and ineffective in your positon on this matter.

The rest of your post was a rant. The original article is not a demonstration of how the media manipulates the truth, it is an accusation of how the media is biased towards the liberal, communists, and terrorists. More specifically it is an accusation, an elaborate set of assumptions based on a rather small amount of 'evidence' from a single source. That I dismiss it outright is no less ineffective than your acceptance of it outright.

That you can't even see this, or you pretend not to, makes your argument very ineffective. It also doesn't help when your first post here is basically congratulating another person for making a post that offends people, and using the offense to try to make it seem like the argument holds water. Sorry, that's not how it works, reasonable argumentation does not go "the first person to deliberately piss off other people wins." I'm sorry you seem to think it does.

Canada City']Just finished watching their videos and it would be honor to shake the hands of those people.

If it's alright for people to say "Fuck Bush" at Bush's speeches or wield anti-bush signs, why can't pro-war people be against anti-war groups? From the videos I've seen, with communists to violent protesters (and burning flags), it makes me wonder if the liberals in America are suffering from sort of mental disease. I have never, ever seen a Canadian up here willing to burn their own flag or resort to nazism or communism just to go against the government. I wonder if this behavior is exclusive only in the states?
How can they resort to nazism or communism? Arn't those both forms of government? Are you saying they are setting up underground shadow governments using the Nazi or communist model?

As the Chronicle itself pointed out a few posts back, if it was trying to de-radicalize the protest, then showing a bandana clad protester with her fist in the air was a poor choice at best. The irony is that the percieved bias is seen through a lense of bias.

What's worse is that pictures in the media are used to create false context, a lot. This just doesn't happen to be one of those cases. It's part of a pattern I see a lot, taking a legitimate claim and screaming a mirrored, less legitimate one in concert to drown out the issue. It's depressing that this is what constitutes discourse.

And could it be the photographer actually walked up and got a closeup?

Photo wise I find it more interesting then a photo of the whole crew. But hey that's me.

me

Not often but I do as well.

Hmmm my Saint wears one. Is she a terrorist? ;)

Up here we don't seem to put so much emphasis on the flag though. Hell, in the states they pledge allegiance to the damn thing.

Not as often as we used to.

But there are those of us who look to the ideals rather then a peace of cloth. Sure it is a symbol but if your burn it are those ideals lost?

You can't claim Freedom of Speech and Expression if you can't burn the flag in protest.

And could it be the photographer actually walked up and got a closeup?

Photo wise I find it more interesting then a photo of the whole crew. But hey that's me.
It's frankly a better photo to do the close up. You couldn't have gotten the detail of her bandana without getting close with the camera. Though I'm not sure why you quoted me to make that statement I'd say yes, I almost garauntee that the photographer got close and took the photo.

As many before me have explained, this is much ado about nothing.

FWIW, the paper has explained the photo and why the charges that it shows bias are bullshit. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/02/EDGR9EVTDP1.DTL&hw=dick+rogers&sn=001&sc=1000

Okay, I took a look at this person's webpage and here's my honest opinion:

He's a paranoid crank.

Was that his blog?

Why do so many blogs read like you're listening to some crazy ranting on a street-corner?

Reality is liberally biased.

It's frankly a better photo to do the close up. You couldn't have gotten the detail of her bandana without getting close with the camera. Though I'm not sure why you quoted me to make that statement I'd say yes, I almost garauntee that the photographer got close and took the photo.


Sorry. I thought I was adding on? ;)

Sorry. I thought I was adding on? ;)
My bad. It's all good.

*snip*
Prove it, I dare you. I double Goddamn dog dare you. Quote me, show me exactly where I said that the entire protest was illegitimate because some whacky teenagers showed up. I'm defending zombietime's argument that the Chronicle did not depict this protest accurately and white washed some very, very ugly elements that people should also see before making any judgements about what kind of people were among the 20,000 who showed up. Or did you forget that? It wasn't just some mother with a cuddly backpack, it was also people waving American flags upside down. It wasn't just an adorable teenager smiling from behind her Ice Cube bandana, it was people waving Palestinian flags at a peace rally. But how the Hell would anyone know that outside of SanFran if their only source for context was the Chronicle?

Oh I don't know, they could try something new and interesting, like reading the actual article in the Chronicle and not just looking at the pictures?

Excerpt:
As they marched, people carried signs expressing outrage at everything from the war in Iraq to President Bush to the treatment of Palestinians. One man, dressed as Uncle Sam, carried an American flag with a peace sign.
Found here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/24/BAprotest24.DTL)

Now, if the peaceful, not-so-ugly elements made up the vast majority of the protesters, I wouldn't call this single picture showing a more radical teen a "white wash" of the protest itself. In my experience, a radical element will almost always be present at any demonstration.
My opinion still is that the blogger is acting silly.