Lies, damned lies, photographs, and the truth

Just to demonstrate how even "photographic" evidence can be so tampered with as to make it the opposite of what actually happened, consider this image from the Charlottesville riots, which I posted in an article a couple of weeks ago.

It was taken from a gallery of images provided here (and linked at the time).

This is what it was turned into by a pro-Antifa supporter, using Photoshop or a similar program.

Details of how it was altered may be found on this Reddit discussion page.

Now, if you hadn't seen the original, would you have believed a claim that the 'doctored' image above proves that neo-Nazis were using flamethrowers on innocent, non-violent left-wing counter-protesters?  I bet you would have . . . but it would have been a lie from start to finish.  The original photograph, at the head of this article, is the real one, showing the exact opposite.  The moral of the story:  always, always fact-check extremist claims.

As Sarah Hoyt points out, this sort of false propaganda is so widespread in left-wing politics right now, particularly in the mainstream media, that it's beyond ridiculous.

Sure, Trump occasionally misspeaks, and sure people can get bored with a speech.  But more importantly, the press is so relentlessly and insanely biased towards anything Trump says or does that it’s sometimes impossible to figure out what they’re reporting on, other than whatever is inside their heads, pre-packaged and ready to “report.”  From offhand comments on Russia, to his comments on what happened in Charlottesville, it’s near impossible to divine what Trump says from how it’s written about.  He could say the sky is blue and get coverage along the lines of “by not mentioning the white clouds, Trump encourages white supremacy.”

. . .

You’d think that Trump’s victory, so stunning that it surprised even those of us who wanted anything but to see Hillary win, would have caused a media wake up, something along the lines of “wait, if this could happen, maybe things aren’t the way we expected” or “maybe there is a defect in our thought.”  Or perhaps even “technology has made it so that we can no longer present a unified front in news, without people being able to see and judge for themselves.”

However,  that is not what seems to have happened ... It’s like the media has been in an enchanted sleep, as though a particularly ugly Snow White had fallen asleep under a spell and failed to note how the world changed around her as she slept.

. . .

And yet instead of reassessing, they just keep trying more of the same, or, by wildly projecting, saying that Trump supporters might harm them, this while deep-sixing coverage of the attack on Scalise by an anti-trump leftist because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

It’s as though they think if they only attack with enough force and vigor they’ll get the result they always got.

Like lab mice in a long deserted lab, they keep pushing with their noses on the pellet dispenser, sure eventually it will dispense just what they want. Only they’re not as smart as lab rats.  Lab rats adapt and learn.  The biased press can only do the same thing over and over again, until all you can think of while watching them is: How long before they starve or starting eating their fellows?

There's more at the link.

Food for thought . . . and a worthwhile reminder to be on our guard.  What you see isn't always what you get, and "all the news that's fit to print" isn't always the truth, let alone real news.

Peter