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

originally posted by: introvert

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 dishonest as a result.

LOL - quite the opposite, the liberal media have just had the rug pulled from under their little fantasy that she was separated, until the Honduran government and father said she was not.

You lot are all of a sudden 100% certain she was never separated in the first place, even though this info has only come to light in the last few hours.

Weak sauce ladies, weak sauce - your narrative is on fire, deal with it.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

LOL - quite the opposite, the liberal media have just had the rug pulled from under their little fantasy that she was separated, until the Honduran government and father said she was not.

Sure, but Time does not say that. Again, is there another aspect your were referring to with the OP, or are you going to continue to be dishonest?

You lot are all of a sudden 100% certain she was never separated in the first place, even though this info has only come to light in the last few hours.

I am certain of nothing. That is why I asked for courses to verify the premise of your OP. You have not done so yet.

Weak sauce ladies, weak sauce - your narrative is on fire, deal with it.

That would hold a bit more weight if you were not being obviously dishonest and not presenting the issue in complete context.

I can understand the desire to call out fake news and propaganda, but you shouldn't have to be dishonest to do it and then insult the intelligence of ATS members by pulling this childish #.

Poor form on your part.

originally posted by: network dude

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...

And? What is that supposed to say? I’ve read it three times and no where does it state that this girl was being separated from her parents. That’s only something that is implied because of the article it’s used in.

Good god people, be more discerning when you read news stories. Rarely if ever is the photos used in news stories actually from the story that’s being reported about.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Jack Posobiec is a paid disinfo agent. That's 100% fact. During the election he was paid by Patriotic Warriors as a "special operations coordinator" or something along those lines. During which time he performed a series of stunts, including the Rape Melania sign hoax.

- He's one of the principals behind the launch of #PizzaGate. You may remember him later streaming from inside Comet Ping Pong.

- Jack Posobiec was the first person to tweet out links to the Macron leaks: Meet the American Who Helped Leak Hacked Emails of French Candidate Emmanuel Macron.

- Jack was the "Washington Bureau Chief" of Rebel Media and was able to obtain WH press credentials. Meet Jack Posobiec: The “alt-right” troll with a press pass in White House

- He was fired from his job at Rebel Media because he got caught plagiarizing Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Unite the Right rally (aka Charlottesville): The Rebel Media Apologizes Over Jack Posobiec Plagiarism Allegations

- Jack gets retweeted by the President and his children:

Donald Trump retweets far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec who took 'rape Melania' sign to rally

Don Jr. Retweets Guy Who Reportedly Brought ‘Rape Melania’ Sign to Rally

- And as you can see, Sublimecraft thinks highly enough of that particular "truth seeker" to share his commentary with us.

Do you really not see the irony in citing Posobiec, who is well known for among other stunts, hoaxing images for propaganda, in a thread about misrepresenting an image for propaganda purposes?

OP could not have selected a worse person. What's next, a blazing hot take from James O'Keefe III about clever edits?

ETA:

And for extra conspiracy points, while he was up to all his shenanigans, Jack Posobiec was an officer in Naval Intelligence. He lost his security clearance.

Right-Winger Jack Posobiec, Retweeted by Trump, Is Navy Intel Officer

wow, that's a bunch of whatabouitism there. The topic is the Time magazine cover, and dishonest propaganda, which is used to manipulate opinions. If you think I believe only the left does it, you are wrong. But in this case, Time is the subject. If you could focus on that, I think a much better discussion could be had.

originally posted by: projectvxn
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 so many people out there are idiots. Someone could just as easily have started a thread crying, "Propaganda!!!! Trump never met this specific little girl face-to-face!!!!".

Idiots on the left will jump to literal interpretations concerning false notions of that specific girl being separated, and idiots on the right will use the image to deflect since that specific child is actually with her family.

It's not about that specific child, she's simply the "face" because her recent image reached pop-culture status. It's provocative cover art. A figurative representation (clearly "photoshopped" with no effort to hide it) never meant to be taken literally.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert

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 dishonest as a result.

LOL - quite the opposite, the liberal media have just had the rug pulled from under their little fantasy that she was separated, until the Honduran government and father said she was not.

You lot are all of a sudden 100% certain she was never separated in the first place, even though this info has only come to light in the last few hours.

Weak sauce ladies, weak sauce - your narrative is on fire, deal with it.

you ask people where in your op you said 'such and such'

and when you cant quote in the article where they said 'such and such' you pull the old 'fingers-in-my-ears-so-i-can't-hear- you, fake-narrative blah blah la lalala'

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Jack Posobiec was behind this:

You're getting sloppy with your gymnastics lately....



The border agents testimony is all over twitter and MSM now.

originally posted by: network dude
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?

Were you not aware that Congressional representatives, Governors, Mayors, and media have been largely blocked from the detention centers with only government authorized images and video being released?

originally posted by: introvert

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?

That’s what I’m trying to find out. And what the OP keeps running from.

a reply to: network dude

You asked about Jack Posobiec's platform. It wasn't whataboutism at all, I was just remarking about the irony of citing Jack Posobiec's commentary. You don't think given the circumstances, that he was a curious choice?

Seriously?

If I wanted to go with whataboutism, I could go:

Bannon's "Killing Machine" Mistakes Lukas Podolski for Migrant on Jetski, Internet Dies Laughing

See how I treated Breitbart passing off a photo of German soccer star Lukas Podolski (Polish by birth), riding a jetski off the coast of Brazil, as a picture of refugee being smuggled into Spain on a jetski?

The funny thing is then they replaced that picture with a picture from of Nigerians being rescued by the Swedish off the Italian coast, which had nothing to do with the story either.

In fact the whole episode was quite a comedy of errors. What I should have done, in hindsight, is declared Brietbart state media.

Fox News, which considering that it's in bed with the Trump admin — you know the person/people in power — is far closer to "state sanctioned media" than anyone else in the US market, has of course has been busted editing photos and videos:

Jon Stewart reported on his November 11, 2009, broadcast of The Daily Show that Fox News pundit Sean Hannity misrepresented video footage purportedly showing large crowds on a health-care protest orchestrated by Rep. Michele Bachmann. Stewart showed inconsistencies in alternating shots according to the color of the sky and tree leaves, showing that spliced in the shots was footage from Glenn Beck's much larger 9/12 rally which had occurred two months earlier. Hannity estimated 20,000 protesters were in attendance, the Washington Post estimated 10,000 and Luke Russert reported that three Capitol Hill police officers guessed "about 4,000."[109][110] Sean Hannity apologized to his viewers for the error during his November 11, 2009 broadcast.[111] Stewart also has periodically accused Fox of playing video footage out of context, such as when Sean Hannity played footage of Obama stating the DREAM Act could not be passed by executive order to make the president seem hypocritical even though when the footage is continued Obama goes on to clarify that the president does have the authority to halt deportations.[112]

On November 18, 2009, Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett told viewers that a Sarah Palin book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan, had a massive turnout while showing footage of Palin with a large crowd. Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book", adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us... The lines earlier had formed this morning."[113] The video was actually taken from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video."[113] Fox offered an on-air apology the following day during the same "Happening Now" segment citing regrets for what they described as a "video error" with no intent to mislead.[114]

In September 2010, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity was criticized notably by Jon Stewart and CNN anchor Howard Kurtz, for selectively editing a video of an Obama speech on his program. Before playing the clip, Hannity remarked that there was a "rare moment of honesty" in Obama's speech, playing a video of Obama saying:

Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year, for everybody.

It quickly cuts back to Hannity, with Hannity saying, "I know the anointed one will make sure that happens."[115] But upon further inspection, what President Obama fully said was:

Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year, for everybody.

All of those are far more egregious than what the OP are insinuating in regards to this photo. There's no "false narrative" being pushed here (unlike with each of the above Fox examples) — unless you're saying that children don't cry when they're ripped from their mothers arms and sent off to "tender age" detention centers — or as you did in fact imply (you say as hypberbole) that maybe there were no children separated from mothers to begin with.

And of course, there's nobody in the media closer to Trump than Hannity. And Breitbart is bankrolled by Trump's biggest financial backer and in part owned by and until recently, run by, Steve Bannon, Trump's campaign manager and a now ex-WH staffer.

Oh the state run media! THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE CHINA. NO NO NO THIS IS NAZI STUFF RIGHT HERE.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

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.

Truth. The media is doing far more damage to freedom of the press than Trump ever could. They've been destroying their own reputation for years. "fake news" is not a new concept, people have known about the media's bias and agenda for a long time.

Nvm.

Going by some of the posts I have read,I think we should take
a milk and cookie break.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

I'll try this once more.

If you have any shred of integrity, you will at the very least, read this link.
time.com...

Once you read that, and you go back to the OP, and read that the parents of this little girl, publicly stated that she was not taken from her mom, you may start to grasp my point, if you do your due diligence, and still disagree, we can find out why, but don't you #ing dare come back at me without reading that link.

originally posted by: japhrimu
So why weren’t the separating-children-from-their-parents laws followed? The mom and daughter were picked up on the 12th, BEFORE exec order signed, right?

(Sarcastic, but now, answer curious)

At this point, we are unsure as to what the actual issue is. The OP uses sources to imply one aspect and then seems to play dumb when it's found Time did not publish anything, yet, saying what the OP claims.

It's a bit of a train wreck here. The OP is crying about fake news narratives, but appears to have pushed a fake news narrative at the same time.

Irony.

Dishonesty and irony.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Sublimecraft

That cover says it all.

Except the truth.

a reply to: odzeandennz

At least you admit that you cannot answer my questions because I never said any such words and that you and the gang have rushed in with your blinders on and your narrative she was separated and I've just blown you out of the water - again.

Unless, of course, you can prove to me that prior to this thread you knew she was not separated.

You also, and your gang, cannot acknowledge anything the father or Honduran government has said about this - you do realise that that makes you all look really really stupid...right?

So, again, why would the Honduran government and father even say such a thing since it was apparently common knowledge.

Can
you
answer
that?

Are any of you dingbats able to?

a reply to: network dude

Once you read that, and you go back to the OP, and read that the parents of this little girl, publicly stated that she was not taken from her mom, you may start to grasp my point, if you do your due diligence, and still disagree, we can find out why, but don't you #ing dare come back at me without reading that link.

I've read it.

Now how does that show Time was pushing a fake news narrative with that pic?

Did they imply the kid was separated from her parents? What did that pic actually imply or mean?

a reply to: theantediluvian

you even agreed it was propaganda. That is the point of the thread. It's like you are arguing that water is indeed wet, but the sky look blue. If it makes you happy, I agree that the guy who did that sign was an asshole. It's my opinion that they time Magazine cover and cover image article here is a lie, as proven in the OP. Do you have a comment on that??

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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

BETTER: