SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations.
As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox's website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront.
The image was actually a mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers — it was done by splicing a Getty Images photo of an armed man, who had been at the protest zone June 10, with other images from May 30 of smashed windows in downtown Seattle. Another altered image combined the gunman photo with yet another image, making it appear as though he was standing in front of a sign declaring "You are now entering Free Cap Hill."
[...] The image, as displayed on the Fox News website, was spliced with other photos, including a photo of a smashed retail storefront in May, making it look as though the scene was all playing out concurrently in the autonomous zone. "It is definitely Photoshopped," confirmed Ryder. "To use a photo out of context in a journalistic setting like that seems unethical."
[...] "I think it's disgraceful propaganda and terribly misrepresentative of documentary journalism in times like this, when truth-telling and accountability is so important," said Kenny Irby, a photojournalism ethics educator and consultant. "There is no attribution. There is no acknowledgment of the montage, and it's terribly misleading."
Akili Ramsess, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), said ethical standards clearly prohibit alteration of photos in news accounts.
Previously:
(2020-06-12) Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:28PM (7 children)
The only thing the far-right has for motivating their base is fear and hate. Nearly everything Fox "reports" is designed to maximize fear and hate.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:50PM (6 children)
Lets pick a couple of 'liberal ones at random and I will do the same you just did for fox
https://www.huffpost.com/ [huffpost.com]
Right now "HEALTH EXPERTS SOUND ALARM ON ‘DANGEROUS’ TRUMP RALLY" cut and pasted headline. Yell and shout about Trumps rallies. Last week how brave the 'protests' are.
https://www.msnbc.com/ [msnbc.com]
"Malcolm Nance: Trump's West Point speech was ‘dull as dishwater’" - drill down and find "MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance" so a writter for MSNBC decides its dull and tells you to think that way too.
https://www.cnn.com/ [cnn.com]
Right now "Officer fatally shoots black man then protests turn fiery in Atlanta" Leaving out he pulled a gun on the guys.
"Analysis: Trump used his platform to hurt a US business. Most people tuned him out" Punditry hit piece
If you think the 'right' is the only one doing this you have to either be ignoring the news or just do not care. But you seem to deeply care about what the 'right' are thinking. So maybe you are just being dishonest or were you ignorant of what the DNC has done to our media?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @09:01PM
Note the lack of replies defending against your attack. Sure liberal tilted media can do the same thing, but as usual you would rather attack someone else than pay attention, fix, or self-analyze your own problems.
Conservative hypocrisy and stupidity at it again!!
Try again when you're able to say "Trump is a terrible president and a criminal who stole from tax payers."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @02:37AM (4 children)
It wasn't a gun, it was a taser, and he didn't "pull it", he grabbed it from an officer. The funny thing now is, they either have to argue tasers are lethal weapons, or that they shot a guy running away who was not armed with a lethal weapon.
If they argue tasers are lethal, that will open them up to a huge number of lawsuits. If they argue tasers are non-lethal then his family can expect a big payout.
On balance, I expect the cop to get tossed under the bus for shooting someone armed with "only" a taser. He will probably lose his job, maybe even his pension.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @06:11AM (3 children)
He's already been fired [11alive.com]:
And good riddance to bad garbage. He shot the man in the back, twice, as he was running away. They had the guy's car, so it's not like if he got away they'd never find him. Shot to death for sleeping in your car. Have you ever slept in your car? If so, does that mean you deserve to die too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @08:31AM
Well, if I get stopped by a cop, I'm not in the habit of stealing his weapons and trying to make a run for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @08:47AM (1 child)
I wasn't arguing that the cop was not a murdering asshole, or that guy was not a suicidal idiot for grabbing a cop's weapon.
I was interested in what they are going to say about tasers. Are they lethal weapons or not?
Cops consistently try to have it both ways, non-lethal when they use them, but dangerous weapons justifying lethal force when someone else uses one on a cop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @03:44PM
AC you replied to here. Fair enough.
I thought your comment opened the door for a wider discussion of police activities and motivations.
Specifically the quality of training police (don't) receive, their focus on arrests rather than public safety and the roles that police are asked to play in communities. There's way too much emphasis on punitive punishment and way too much treating the citizens they are supposed to serve like their enemies.
Of course police often deal with the worst of us, but that's their job. They were not drafted or indentured. And those who treat those they are sworn to "protect and serve" with disrespect, violence and murder need to never have been hired in the first place, and fired/prosecuted (as appropriate) if they are erroneously hired.
As to the whole "well he was drunk and abusive, so he deserved whatever he got" goes, I'd ask each and every person reading this comment to think back in their lives and try to count the number of times they woke up after a night out and couldn't remember how they *drove* home because they were impaired.
I grew up in a large city and was able to use public transportation and taxis after a night out drinking. However, most folks are in places where public transportation is spotty or non-existent, especially at night.
Driving while impaired is a huge problem and needs to be addressed. However, shooting someone dead seems more than a little extreme.
As I mentioned, the man was in a *stopped* car. I'm not sure how he could harm anyone with a stationary vehicle. What's more, I didn't realize that being drunk in a *stopped* car was a crime. AFAIK, we don't have "Drunk in Charge" [wikipedia.org] laws in the US like they do in the UK.
As such, it seems like it would be more productive to make sure someone isn't able to drive if they are impaired. Confiscating the car keys while the person slept it off (in this case, he was already doing so) makes a lot more sense than employing violence.