TIME Magazine & CNN exposed pushing fake news imagery and propaganda.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Sublimecraft

HOLY CANOLLI! It's almost as if TIME, CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSNBC,...have an ANTI-Trump agenda of their very own!

Say It Ain't So!

It's "time" to take CNN out!

CNN is doing a stellar job of achieving irrelevancy on it's very own.

I'd kinda hate to get in the way of that.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: underwerks

You: "and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated"
Me: "Who said that?"

Now, back to you, since you didn't answer my question.

who
said
that?

I’ve asked you several times. Is that what your OP is implying?

Yet you respond with “who said that?”
???


Your OP only works if TIME magazine tried to use that photo as evidence of children being separated from their parents, but that was never stated by TIME at all, anywhere.

That’s just an assumption you and others seeing the article/cover made. And now you’re trying to use your assumption as evidence of TIME lying and forcing anti-Trump propaganda on people.

originally posted by: underwerks
I think it just dawned on the OP the basic fallacy of the whole thing. That calling out TIME magazine for lying about this photo doesn’t work because they actually never stated it was a photo of a child being separated from her mother.

Exactly, it was cover art, and Time never made any claim that this art was a literal representation of that specific child being separated from her family, or that Trump ever literally met her face to face for that matter.

It's provocative art, and it has clearly scored a home run with so much current discussion focused on it.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Sublimecraft

give a link to the article where they said she was separated from her parents at the border please .

take a screenshot of the OP and circle where **I said she was separated from her parents at the border please.

**(thats me btw, Sublimecraft, I'm not the father of the little girl, nor the Honduran government)

I'll wait whilst you don your leotards......

the irony is maddening isnt it:

Time prints a misleading picture suggesting she was separated from parents at the border, when she wasn't;

you make a thread suggesting on the surface that Time magazine said she was separated from her parents at the border when they didn't....

and both corners are equally outraged.

mad times, mad society.

The entire thread in a nutshell.

Thank you for stating it in a simple and concise way.

a reply to: Sublimecraft


Here ya go! Someone has balanced out the propaganda/lie for youse all!



Happy now?

Honey Badger don't care, Melania don't care, but ObamaCares! LOL

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: underwerks

Calling out TIME magazine for using this photo and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated when it isn’t?

Who said that?

Your sources used in the OP.

Otherwise, what is the fake news narrative your are implying they are spreading with that picture and no other context?

Name the sources

You can read your own OP.

Again, if that is not the premise, what is the fake news narrative they are spreading.

a reply to: underwerks

That was an assumption that was made, then was used to try and smear TIME and everyone else that disagrees with them

BS that's been the leftist narrative the whole time.

Time parrots the narrative with obvious propaganda.

Now why would, say, CBS feel the need to say the following on this:
Crying girl in iconic image was never separated from mother, ICE says

Probably because that particular little girl was reportedly ripped away from her mother by ICE agents...

Moore's image is now on the cover of Time magazine next to a picture of President Trump.

"They're using it to symbolize a policy and that was not the case in this picture," Ruiz said. "It took less than two minutes. As soon as the search was finished, she immediately picked the girl up, and the girl immediately stopped crying."

But that didn't stop the leftist propaganda machine from making a mountain out of a molehill and you have the audacity to call it right wing propaganda when it's called out for the lie that it is?

Unbelievable.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Sublimecraft

give a link to the article where they said she was separated from her parents at the border please .

take a screenshot of the OP and circle where **I said she was separated from her parents at the border please.

**(thats me btw, Sublimecraft, I'm not the father of the little girl, nor the Honduran government)

I'll wait whilst you don your leotards......

So do you admit that the girl in the photos mother wasn’t being separated from her?

Because that’s kind of what the OP is based on. Right? Calling out TIME magazine for using this photo and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated when it isn’t?

That must be the premise, otherwise the OP does not make sense.

I think it just dawned on the OP the basic fallacy of the whole thing. That calling out TIME magazine for lying about this photo doesn’t work because they actually never stated it was a photo of a child being separated from her mother.

That was an assumption that was made, then was used to try and smear TIME and everyone else that disagrees with them.

Right wing propaganda 101.

The cover doesn't say anything, except "welcome to America".

No other context, so I wonder what the fake news narrative is if the premise is not that the child was taken from the parents. If that's not the premise, why did he use sources that specifically addressed that aspect?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

That cover says it all.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Sublimecraft

give a link to the article where they said she was separated from her parents at the border please .

take a screenshot of the OP and circle where **I said she was separated from her parents at the border please.

**(thats me btw, Sublimecraft, I'm not the father of the little girl, nor the Honduran government)

I'll wait whilst you don your leotards......

the irony is maddening isnt it:

Time prints a misleading picture suggesting she was separated from parents at the border, when she wasn't;

you make a thread suggesting on the surface that Time magazine said she was separated from her parents at the border when they didn't....

and both corners are equally outraged.

mad times, mad society.

The entire thread in a nutshell.

Thank you for stating it in a simple and concise way.

I think the OP got caught pushing his own fake narrative and is not being honest as a result.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

This is lying right to your face. And if they can't find ONE good picture that factually illustrates the point, it makes you wonder if there is any truth at all to the matter.

Holy #.

Not even Trump nor any of the other liars in his administration denied that what has been happening, happened. Are you honestly arguing that because this particular girl wasn't separated from her mother that there weren't thousands of children who were?

Please, I am well aware what happened is real. my hyperbole is in reference to the fact that Time had to use a fake picture to illustrate their point, when if this was even half as bad as it's been billed, there should have been about 12,000 photo opps. Why were none of them used, you know, real ones?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: underwerks

You: "and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated"
Me: "Who said that?"

Now, back to you, since you didn't answer my question.

who
said
that?

I’ve asked you several times. Is that what your OP is implying?

Yet you respond with “who said that?”
???

You typed out the following words, verbatim.......

So do you admit that the girl in the photos mother wasn’t being separated from her?

Because that’s kind of what the OP is based on. Right? Calling out TIME magazine for using this photo and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated when it isn’t?

So, why would the Honduran government and the girls father say that she wasn't separated? Is that what you don't want to talk about?

Why would they say that?

What prompted them into saying that she was not separated?

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: underwerks
I think it just dawned on the OP the basic fallacy of the whole thing. That calling out TIME magazine for lying about this photo doesn’t work because they actually never stated it was a photo of a child being separated from her mother.

Exactly, it was cover art, and Time never made any claim that this art was a literal representation of that specific child being separated from her family, or that Trump ever literally met her face to face for that matter.

It's provocative art, and it has clearly scored a home run with so much current discussion focused on it.

I think it says a lot about how naive people are when reading news stories. It wouldn’t ever occur to me that the pictures used in a story are directly from the story that I’m reading, but it seems some people still believe that.

And now there’s a whole right wing news cycle based off of that misinterpretation, that is obviously shared by a great number of people that just believe what they see without question.

To all of you right wing “fake news” people: This is what real fake news looks like. Intentionally misinterpreting a news story and trying to use it to smear people you disagree with.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

at lest one legitimate picture must exist that would show this in it's context.

That was a "legitimate" picture.

There are lots of legitimate writen descriptions of filthy grimey babies that haven't been bathed in days and traumaticed toddles, crying histerically because they believed their parents were dead. Then there is that legitimate audio tape of terrified and traumatized voices of little children.

The OP says it's propaganda.

Please! It's propaganda because you don't like the imagrery. If you related to the imagrery you'd be just fine and it would be visual political commentary.

I invite you to look at this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
read it, and let me know if you can understand my point. If you can't, I'll do my best to explain what the words in that post mean.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: underwerks

You: "and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated"
Me: "Who said that?"

Now, back to you, since you didn't answer my question.

who
said
that?

I’ve asked you several times. Is that what your OP is implying?

Yet you respond with “who said that?”
???

You typed out the following words, verbatim.......

So do you admit that the girl in the photos mother wasn’t being separated from her?

Because that’s kind of what the OP is based on. Right? Calling out TIME magazine for using this photo and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated when it isn’t?

So, why would the Honduran government and the girls father say that she wasn't separated? Is that what you don't want to talk about?

Why would they say that?

What prompted them into saying that she was not separated?

So is that the premise of your OP or not? If not, what is the premise of your claim?

We cannot move forwards until you provide a solid premise for us to work from.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Sublimecraft

give a link to the article where they said she was separated from her parents at the border please .

Exactly.

This is just another case of right wingers arguing an assumption as fact, then trying to smear the other side with it. Nothing I read in any of the original articles says this family was being separated. That’s just an assumption the reader made based on the photo.

What a lame way to try to call out the media.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: underwerks

You: "and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated"
Me: "Who said that?"

Now, back to you, since you didn't answer my question.

who
said
that?

I’ve asked you several times. Is that what your OP is implying?

Yet you respond with “who said that?”
???

You typed out the following words, verbatim.......

So do you admit that the girl in the photos mother wasn’t being separated from her?

Because that’s kind of what the OP is based on. Right? Calling out TIME magazine for using this photo and saying it’s a picture of a woman and child being separated when it isn’t?

So, why would the Honduran government and the girls father say that she wasn't separated? Is that what you don't want to talk about?

Why would they say that?

What prompted them into saying that she was not separated?

Because they were never separated.
???

TIME magazine never stated they were separated, no one did. Yet your OP is based on calling out TIME magazine for using this photo as evidence of children being separated from their parents.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

This is lying right to your face. And if they can't find ONE good picture that factually illustrates the point, it makes you wonder if there is any truth at all to the matter.

Holy #.

Not even Trump nor any of the other liars in his administration denied that what has been happening, happened. Are you honestly arguing that because this particular girl wasn't separated from her mother that there weren't thousands of children who were?

Please, I am well aware what happened is real. my hyperbole is in reference to the fact that Time had to use a fake picture to illustrate their point, when if this was even half as bad as it's been billed, there should have been about 12,000 photo opps. Why were none of them used, you know, real ones?

What was their point?

Please source.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Sublimecraft

And trump changed the emplementation of a law that led to the number of immigrant families being seperated jumping 1,000 fold.

Just to clarify, do you mean 'immigrant families' or did you mean 'families of illegal immigrants'?

Because the difference is huge. Is there a single case of an immigrant family being separated, or only families of illegal immigrants?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

This is lying right to your face. And if they can't find ONE good picture that factually illustrates the point, it makes you wonder if there is any truth at all to the matter.

Holy #.

Not even Trump nor any of the other liars in his administration denied that what has been happening, happened. Are you honestly arguing that because this particular girl wasn't separated from her mother that there weren't thousands of children who were?

Please, I am well aware what happened is real. my hyperbole is in reference to the fact that Time had to use a fake picture to illustrate their point, when if this was even half as bad as it's been billed, there should have been about 12,000 photo opps. Why were none of them used, you know, real ones?

So, basically you're just criticizing the artist's laziness and lack of authenticity? So, make a better one with your own photoshop skills!