Utopia Talk / Politics / NEWS MEDIA BUSTED!! Time cover a hoax

superdude Member	Fri Jun 22 17:25:42 http://www...nduran-girl-fake-but-accurate/ I Knew this was bullshit mainstream media can't be trusted.
murder Member	Fri Jun 22 17:30:14 They must've seen a different picture than I did, because the one I saw didn't have the girl being carried away by anyone.
obaminated Member	Fri Jun 22 22:52:34 The media we get is agenda driven, both right and left. Which is essentially propaganda. So of course this was propaganda. We literally cant trust the media to show us the true picture sans some political narrative. We are witnessing the fall of rome.
Paramount Member	Sat Jun 23 03:02:24 I think everyone can see that the Time cover is a photomontage.
Paramount Member	Sat Jun 23 03:03:34 Breitbart.com lol
hood Member	Sat Jun 23 09:20:59 The amount of vaginal bleeding expended over people correcting mistakes is mind blowing. Corrections >>>>>> sticking to your errors.
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 23 10:39:28 Mainstream media releases corrections. Cuckservative media repeats the lie ad nauseum. For example, Roy Moore is still a hero of the people falsely accused by the evil liberals especially all the Republican women that accussed him.
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 23 10:39:54 As per breitbart, fox news, red state, and apl the cuckservative news sources.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Jun 23 12:37:30 "but insisted that its cover image linking the migrant girl to President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” border enforcement policy is still accurate." So TIME admits they are totally wrong, but don't you believe it for a second. TIME is still right no matter how often they tell the public how badly they screwed up.
American Democrat Member	Sat Jun 23 19:30:16 Is it unheard up that journalists or news agencies make errors and then address the issues and correct it? Do you want to compare the many mistakes and errors that sources you only listen to and how rare they either one correct it or try to spin it? TIME has admitted an error and it isn't really that big of an error. It is only that big of an error because how organizations like breitbart or fox spin it. With that side, did TIME report or the Photographer who took the picture reported that is what happened to the girl? I believe no actually articulate supported that impression. What was depicted from the photograph highlights the detrimental, stress, and heartbreak that endures in children when being in such situations, which coincides with the theme that has been occurring. The 'admittance' is basically an extinguisher to an overblown, misconstrued, and misinterpretation. Both right and left are guilty of this. But it does not dismiss the overall impact and reality of what is occurring to those families that are being separated due to arbitration.
kargen Member	Sat Jun 23 19:56:24 I don't think it was an error in the way Time would have us believe. TIME knew the story with the little girl before they ran the cover but didn't care. If caught they already had the retraction ready to go, no harm no foul and the image has more impact than any retraction ever would. If nobody catches the lie even better. Same thing with Samantha Bee when she told her Ivanka Trump joke. They most likely wrote the apology when they wrote the joke and had it ready for release before the joke aired. They just don't care if they get called out on shit like this because the retraction or clarification never becomes as much of a story as the original statement/story. President Trump does something similar to get the press to cover things they would otherwise ignore. He knows a lot of what he says is exaggerated or simply wrong and says it anyway. Then when called on it claims that is just my style and I wanted to get the conversation started.
hood Member	Sat Jun 23 20:47:51 " Then when called on it claims that is just my style and I wanted to get the conversation started." No, Trump never does this. Trump unapologetically insists his statements are true. The small army of daycare and handlers issue retractions (sometimes to no avail, when Trump throws them under the bus). As to your conspiracies: evidence.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Jun 23 21:06:24 ad - TIME has admitted an error and it isn't really that big of an error. It is a totally false, lying, made up cover. It has zero bearing on the truth. This just proves that you and the rest of the Democrats are in your death throes. Your party will fold within the next ten years if you last that long.
American Democrat Member	Sat Jun 23 21:28:26 "It is a totally false, lying, made up cover. It has zero bearing on the truth. " Could you please provide exactly what is false about it. Can you provide the article that claims specifically that this child was separated. Again, and may be wrong, but I found no evidence of this. However the inference can be placed there and that is where the translation is lost. Also again, the photographer who took the pick never said the child was separated. Also Hot Rod, you really do not have any standing considering who the President is who lies as they breath.
Paramount Member	Sun Jun 24 02:22:53 The cover is a very good illustration. It illustrates how babies are crying and hurting because of Trump’s policies. The cover and the photo of the child is excellent in that sense. It is just illustrating Trumps policies. But yeah, I can see how people at Breitbart feels that they has to attack this cover – it is because the cover is so good, and it is provocative to them. They don’t want to believe that the guy they support are hurting families and children. Or more likely, they know the Trump admin is like that, they just don’t want people to talk about it. So they attack the cover and claims it is fake.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 24 03:18:58 Or on the other side he is protecting children. Remember there was over a 300% increase in adults with children claiming to be the parents when in fact they were not related in any way. Separating the children until the accompanying adults can be properly identified is the correct way to go about this. And again if a parent doesn't want to be separated all they need do is approach a border crossing and ask for asylum. Crossing illegally is what starts this whole mess and that is on the adults that insist on trying to sneak across knowing full well what might happen. "Time also published an article about the image, which said the girl was taken away, screaming, by border patrol agents." You didn't find evidence because you didn't look.
American Democrat Member	Sun Jun 24 10:24:29 ""Time also published an article about the image, which said the girl was taken away, screaming, by border patrol agents." " Where is the said article?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun Jun 24 19:03:02 http://sco...7b2f4c0630e8c13230&oe=5BA2F77C
kargen Member	Sun Jun 24 22:26:26 In the fucking magazine dipwad. And Time isn't even disputing that they misrepresented what happened to the little girl. They are justifying it by saying she is a symbol of what happened to other children.
hood Member	Sun Jun 24 23:11:39 The article hasn't even been published yet!? If it has, please do correct me and link to it. However. "They are justifying it by saying she is a symbol of what happened to other children." Yeah, it's a completely legit justification. "We chose the picture to best fit our cover. So this specific girl wasn't separated; that wasn't really the point."
American Democrat Member	Mon Jun 25 04:59:16 "In the fucking magazine dipwad. " Not what was ask. There is a claim made by the OP including the source. TIME has given interviews, the photographer has given interviews and on record. Not once did they specify that the girl was separating. You are making that claim as well. I haven't seen any language that says it. So where is said article that articulates it? Or would you concede that Fox, Breitbart, and any other propaganda machine falsely made the claim that TIME declared the girl was separated?
American Democrat Member	Mon Jun 25 05:10:48 Or allow me to rephrase; if the admittance of misstatement occurred and corrected. "possible separation." That isn't so much of a "hoax" or "fake" only an acknowledgement of a mistaken reported. And if they stand by the picture, it still fits their narrative of what message and impact they are trying to have to highlight how sensitive the situation is. Therefore, the only ones that are going out of their way, after hundreds of pictures, hundreds of stories, and interviews that depict such incidents are occurring are the far right outlets that taken one thing and running with it to push forward their agenda. And the base, which includes you apparently are eating it up and lost perspective and message in translation. I hardly bet Breitbart would go out of their way to admit their mistakes.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Jun 25 06:13:58 hood - Yeah, it's a completely legit justification. "We chose the picture to best fit our cover. So this specific girl wasn't separated; that wasn't really the point." So, it is fine with you when the media fakes the news? That means you are a serious part of the problem.
American Democrat Member	Mon Jun 25 06:17:06 How was this fake? None of you are able to answer this.
hood Member	Mon Jun 25 07:55:07 There's nothing fake here. Time appeared to want a picture of a refugee to be used in juxtaposition to Trump to make a "stand off between the most powerful job in the world and a little, innocent refugee child." Girl doesn't need to have been separated from her parents to emblemize that relationship, nor does she need to have been separated to serve as that symbol in relation to the Trump separation issue. Quite simply, the people who are causing a commotion over this are either very dishonest (because they get it and are playing it up anyway) or are pretty fucking stupid and lacking even a modicum of expressive talent. This is art. It is a symbol. You don't need a 1 for 1 match. It's like anyone who bitches that the kid from Glee in the wheelchair wasn't actually disabled: no shit, it's called acting. Representation, not actual.
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 08:17:39 http://www...r-says/?utm_term=.eb0dda06f0ad "Time also has added a correction to an online article and gallery that ran Tuesday, before the cover was released: “The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she [was] taken from the scene." You won't find the article because it was an online article that has been corrected. A picture is worth a thousand words. I am personally convinced that Time magazine and the photographer was fully aware of the situation. Moore(the photographer)a Pulitzer winner has been taking pictures of the border since 2012 and I'm not sure about the sudden change of heart that is suggested. Why this particular point in time is highly suspect of motive. I believe the Democratic Party is going to see a ripple rather than a wave come midterm election. Time(pun intended) will tell.
hood Member	Mon Jun 25 08:34:49 "You won't find the article because it was an online article that has been corrected." Oh the article exists. The internet captures everything. Either way: use of the girl as a cover != this article being wrong and corrected.
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 08:49:01 Exactly why I said a picture is worth a thousand words and the so called purported error causing the the controversy has diminished purpose to some degree. It was totally unnecessary from my point of view. I realize the internet captures everything. That doesn't mean the public can gain access, but if you can please present so we can read.
hood Member	Mon Jun 25 09:12:12 Oh I'm awful at web searching. But someone more proficient can likely find an indexed version of the original story.
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 09:20:13 I'm fairly decent at searching, but I'm also positive there are others more capable and why I asked you to please present. I've spent a considerable amount of time searching many different ways and methods. Considering the Washington Post leanings I have no reason to deny the article was posted so I don't really need it to justify my conclusion. Thanks just the same.
hood Member	Mon Jun 25 10:05:21 Well there was a link to the internet article being referenced on time.com, just not an original (that is easily findable).
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 10:47:07 Links referencing the internet article are easily found on a large number of sites. "just not an original" Excuse me if I didn't make that clear.
American Democrat Member	Mon Jun 25 10:55:02 The main issue is calling the article fake or hoax that is being perpetuated by the far right and Trump's base as a "gotcha moment" because Time corrected an error about the result of the child. While at the same time still using the image as a representation capturing the essence of the moment. The far right pounced on it declaring it "fake news" but there was nothing fake about the picture(intenion) or the article itself.
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 11:03:47 I'm fully aware of the issues and reasoning behind both sides and not just one. I have no emotional bias either way. One soon realizes raising four daughters to remove emotion from reason. It was good for them and also good for me. As for Trump's decision on zero tolerance, it was a horrible decision.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Jun 25 17:22:23 How many murders, as a society, are we allowed per year? Just curious.
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 18:31:25 I think it would be pretty strange to allow murders. Such situations aren't acts of approval. I don't support open borders. No Christ complex here and I actually have reasonable standards to include compassion.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Jun 25 20:02:33 A law is, a law is, a law is...
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Jun 25 20:07:42 That looks funny, but you get the idea.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Jun 25 20:23:25 You liberals really don't get it, do you? I'm talking about the cover, you really do not get what is wrong with it, do you? You want me to tell you? OK, I will tell you. I T I S A L I E.
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 20:40:08 I'm nearly 100% sure you've underestimated liberals. They get it perfectly well.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Jun 25 20:41:17 TJ, I just came across this. Authorities abandon 'zero-tolerance' for immigrant families McALLEN, Texas (AP) — The Trump administration has scaled back a key element of its zero-tolerance immigration policy amid a global uproar over the separation of more than 2,300 migrant families, halting the practice of turning over parents to prosecutors for charges of illegally entering the country. MORE: http://www...famil.html#.7518-stage-hero1-1
TJ Member	Mon Jun 25 20:42:22 Old news old timer.
American Democrat Member	Tue Jun 26 04:58:18 "I T I S A L I E. " How is it a lie?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Jun 26 05:31:38 ad, you are liberal. That translates to, you are too stupid to get it, but I will try. Consider the current news about the children being ripped from their parents arms by the Trump Administration. Consider that TIME is a liberal news organ. Consider the little girl represents those children when someone sees the TIME cover. Consider the huge Trump towering over the little girl. Now do you get? Just one more point. The little girl was never ever taken from her parents. The lie is based on the inference that the little girl is one of those that was taken from her parents. The little girl was never ever taken from her parents. I told you that you wouldn't get it.
American Democrat Member	Tue Jun 26 06:24:52 That wasn't the point made by the Times. It's your concocted interpretation, nay, its way your repeating what the far right claimed. As you see incapable of formulating your own thought process since you have a subservient characteristic. Times corrected and error. The photographer has stated he never inferred or wrote she was separated. He has a history for some years for taking photographs capturing what occurs in that area. With the recent practice and policy attached with what has been occurring. An image captured a moment depicting and representing the attitude the administration has. As well has showing the emotional and stress of what's happening. Which puts a perspective of how terrible it is for other families being separated. So your claim because Trump is towering over the girl and he wasn't there is the lie? Ok fair point. Trump was not there.
American Democrat Member	Tue Jun 26 06:25:59 *as you were incapable....
Delude Member	Tue Jun 26 06:37:11 Oh let's face it's concocted because time admitted an error and dumbasses like HR is trying to us it to spread their retardation about "waah fake news." Where those same ultra conservative sites or "news" when they lie about a subject and the counter is made proving they are wrong. They continue to spread the lie or expect their base to keep sharing it avoiding the facts and not even attempt to make it accurate. Or hardly admit their errors and correct it. But HR has an 8th grade education, years and years of ignorance and stupidity and has remain that for for the larger duration of the forums existence. That alone should tell you what HR is.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Jun 26 06:56:45 See, I told you that you were too stupid to get it. "The lie is based on the inference..." Try looking up the word 'inference'. That is what the photo infers. Now, go soak your head in a nasty commode. You might learn something.
American Democrat Member	Tue Jun 26 07:06:58 The inference stating separation wasn't there. Even the photographer said they were not separated but being move to another location which could be "possible separation." You have not been able to prove the lie, Hot Rod.
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 07:55:10 "The lie is based on the inference that the little girl is one of those that was taken from her parents." The picture is a symbol. Symbols represent reality, they are not actual reality. You might as well bitch that the picture was photoshopped, because Trump was never actually standing near this girl. That's what you're doing right now.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Jun 26 08:17:55 sigh...
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 08:52:34 http://i.d...9-image-a-18_1529601211499.jpg This doesn't look like a desperate Honduran family to me that needs to escape a horrible situation. What is the inference of the photo? A mother who abandons a husband and three other children by all appearances seem to be a wholesome family unit. She allegedly paid a coyote 6k to escort her and the child leaving a husband and other children behind. Hot Rod, forget it, everything is on the up and up and truly understand the virtue of selfishness. Quoting the husband: Denis said that he believes the journey across the border is only worth it to some degree, and admits that it's not something he would ever consider. He said he heard from friends that his wife paid $6,000 for a coyote - a term for someone who smuggles people across the border. "I wouldn't risk my life for it. It's hard to find a good job here and that's why many people choose to leave. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey." One would think of all the persecuted that make the journey the photographer and Time would have been more select. Persecution seeking asylum or what? The inference was a depiction of Trump the nasty, heartless, racist, bigot, Hitler, absent heart as well as many more. No doubt that the radicals and their anarchic supporters know exactly what they are doing.
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 09:01:15 "This doesn't look like a desperate Honduran family to me that needs to escape a horrible situation." What? This is so beyond retarded I'm not sure if you're trolling, legitimately stupid, or what. There exist plenty of pictures of me, my mom, my sister, my dad, all happy and smiling. You wouldn't have been able to tell from a fucking photograph that my dad was pure assholery, that my mom and I hated him, that since those pictures from when I was young I quite literally haven't spoken to him in a decade and have no plans to... But yeah. There was a normal looking picture, so everything is fucking fine. How far up Trump's ass are you that your brain has ceased to engage?
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 09:03:12 Glad you realize pictures don't tell truth. :)
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 09:10:11 It's a sad day when someone thinks that is clever or remotely relevant. You should stick to retirement, not thinking.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 09:13:42 It means nothing to me what you think. Reciprocal... Indeed it is a sad day for you. How relevant do you believe yourself to be?
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 10:16:26 "How relevant do you believe yourself to be?" How is this relevant to the discussion? Did you think I was calling you irrelevant? "It means nothing to me what you think. Reciprocal..." And yet I will offer sound advice anyway. Your brain has betrayed you. You are indeed very stupid. I would recommend a moment or two of self reflection, consider that you are either purposely dishonest in your arguments or not cogent enough to recognize the dishonesty of your arguments.
Delude Member	Tue Jun 26 11:27:03 I dont know what's happening. But main thing is that hot rod is stupid.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 11:43:32 Insinuate as you wish. It presently exists as a privilege. How relevant is it for you to tackle a deeper self reflection? You are an intelligent individual and I have no doubt. I'm more than cogent enough to express the compliment. Since you are willing to provide me with what you believe to be sound advice you've provided an equal opportunity of directness. Reflect on how you present yourself and points of view. Do you care? I believe you are more capable than you are presenting yourself since we are providing each other sound advice. Does it matter in this arena? The situation with your family is not all that uncommon, and yes, her husband might be a monster and she did what she felt absolutely necessary. Inferences... My father and his 3 siblings left home never to return in 1944. All are dead now who never spoke to their father again. They didn't live in a time of many opportunities. His father was a horrible person. He left a loaded shotgun in a closet and when my grandmother opened the door it blew her head off. My father and his siblings believed it was on purpose because of his meanness, but the incident was ruled accidental. Unfortunately it took a huge toll on all their lives and the way they viewed the world. All of us have histories. I've done plenty of self reflection and need not be schooled. My pieces fit me more than satisfactorily. I didn't arrive where I am today without enormous reflection, effort, and labor. Reflection is only good when you can be honest with yourself and you hopefully have many years to continue the navigation. Pictures be damned, eh?
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 12:39:55 You seemed to avoid answering my question there.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 13:18:29 "How is this relevant to the discussion? Did you think I was calling you irrelevant?" However relevant you judge my position to have been. How relevant was your family situation. Inference... No I didn't take it as though you thought I was irrelevant, because it wasn't a concern of mine from the beginning of our exchanges. Does that answer your question? I'm in the process of renovating a kitchen for my wife. Gutted and totally reconstructed. Just to let you know any responses, if I choose to continue, might be delayed. Is that relevant to the discussion? It has nothing to do with avoidance.
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 13:36:05 That is the answer I expected. You don't understand the issue, it seems; and that's been my point the entire time.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 14:06:07 Even though you've clearly stated I don't understand the issue your continuing arrogance explains why I provided you reasonably sound advice. You can take it or leave it as you choose, obviously. You seem to assume a lot of things you believe to be true. Words come easy, eh? Seem is convenient and most often not reality. The usage is an inference of personal experience. Like I said previously, the zero tolerance policy was a horrible decision. What do you understand about misery others are experiencing that makes you believe that I don't understand?
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 14:13:57 "What do you understand about misery others are experiencing that makes you believe that I don't understand?" I thought this was about pictures? "Even though you've clearly stated I don't understand the issue your continuing arrogance explains why I provided you reasonably sound advice." Oh don't you worry, I'm very careful with my communication at a professional level. But UP is hardly the time or place for me to worry about offending people. I've explained it several times. It isn't a difficult concept. At some point, one must simply cut losses and accept that there is a group of people who simply lack the ability to comprehend a given topic. It seems that with many Trump supporters, understanding the significant parts of art (the magazine cover - you know, those pictures you been going on about) is beyond them. Fair enough, I will not waste more time attempting to explain. But for my own amusement, I'll still point out stupidity when it appears.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 14:47:30 I suppose a depiction of misery and suffering is not relevant to the discussion, It is just art, eh? Maybe I am confused, is the discussion about picture art or a real devastating issue for those seeking relief? I may or may not point out what I view, but seldom do, mostly because it is UP as you referred. There are many on both sides of the issue that stupidity has no boundary. The problem needs to be reasonably resolved removing it as a political football for both parties. No one is doing immigrants and migrants any favors. Honestly, that sentiment is from one professional to another.
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 16:22:25 "I suppose a depiction of misery and suffering is not relevant to the discussion, It is just art, eh?" The magazine cover is absolutely art. It is art created to elicit a response (like all art), but it is still art. The fact that the specific girl was not separated from her mother isn't material to the cover, it's material to the article that claimed she was. They could have used any random hispanic girl for the cover and it still would have held the same function. Getting your panties in a twist because the exact chosen subject to represent the refugees wasn't one who was separated from their family is, as I have said several times, completely immaterial. It has no bearing on the purpose or impact or targeted emotion of the magazine cover.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 16:32:04 My panties aren't and have not been twisted as you suggest. Maybe yours are. I dunno and if they are it doesn't interest me more than what I just typed. "It is just art, eh?"" Does that mean to you I said it wasn't art? I don't care if they had used any kid off the street. The point of the art came through clearly.
hood Member	Tue Jun 26 16:36:57 And yet here you are suggesting that Time lacked integrity for their choice in subject of the cover. That is not congruent with not caring about the subject chosen.
TJ Member	Tue Jun 26 16:49:12 I simply suggested or implied that if Time had used a current subject they wouldn't have diminished it, spared unnecessary ridicule, even though it was creatively effective with a good result. Anyway, I'm done here there are more pressing matters that need my attention.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Jun 26 23:35:14 The cover implies ***EXACTLY*** what TIME wanted it to imply. I'm not sure what TIME's circulation is nowadays but I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people out there that took the picture at face value. And that did nothing but increase their hate for the current administration. Well done assholes.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Jun 27 05:38:26 Uh huh. Face it, Trump always wanted to be on Time magazine without having to fake his own. He should be proud!
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: