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

originally posted by: introvert
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?

John Moore, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer for Getty Images, has been photographing immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border for years. This week one of his pictures became the most visible symbol of the immigration debate in America. “This one was tough for me. As soon as it was over, they were put into a van. I had to stop and take deep breaths,” Moore told TIME Tuesday, describing his reaction to the scene of a two-year-old Honduran girl crying as her mother was being detained in McAllen, Texas. “All I wanted to do was pick her up. But I couldn’t.” John Moore—Getty Images John Moore—Getty Images Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine.

you play stupid a bit too well.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

That article doesn’t state she was being taken from her mom either. It says her mom was being “detained”.

That’s it. Detained doesn’t mean arrested, as anyone who’s had a police officer detain them for questioning knows.

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

originally posted by: face23785
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.

Art is art, and news is news.

This is provocative cover art.

People trying to claim that art is news (or in this case that art is "fake news") represents a huge part of the political problem we have here in the U.S..

a reply to: underwerks

Ironic position, considering the many 'dog-whistle' believing theorists...

Articles says: ....'detained' ...and the very next paragraph says:

Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine.

The implication and fuzziness are purposeful. Period.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Ummm, no. You're just being the usual deluded little leftist.

You know damned well what Time Magazine was getting at, the implications were clear as day. Since you'll most likely play dumb I'll go ahead and wipe your arse for you. The pic was played as an example of the current faux outrage of children being separated from their families by unscrumpulous ICE agents, lol. They figured, "Hey, perfect way to smear Trump and his admin on the current issues!!"

In other words, it was a play at painting Trump as a President who is uprooting (In their sick, twisted leftist liberal world) American beliefs and ideals.

Premise, CHILDREN BEING SEPARATED.

The point of the OP is addressing the leftist propaganda machine that currently INFECTS our networks. Pointing out Times Magazines greatest mistake and hyprocrisy.

That the child on the cover WASN'T separated at all and in fact, had nothing to do with any cause.

---

"And Time pretty clearly thought that was the case. A correction on the piece currently says:

Correction: The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together." (Blake et al)

Source:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Yes, I have no respect for leftist news rags, however considering your stance, I'm assuming this will be palatable to your "taste".

a reply to: introvert

At this point, we are unsure as to what the actual issue is.

and it appears it will remain that way because, basically, your ego is too fragile to be honest about being presumptuous warping into this thread reading and retaining via your preconceived biases about me and when you were caught out in your presumptuousness via me asking for where I said stuff, you became unhinged and suddenly knew she was never separated in the first place so as to save your embarrassment.

deal with it, these are the facts.

Unless, of course, you can prove you knew she wasn't and you can acknowledge the Honduran government and fathers comments that she was not separated.

Why would the Honduran government and father say that Introvert, why???

originally posted by: crtrvt

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

Yeah he cared so much he signed an EO to stop the family separations.

Oh wait, no he didn't. He actually handed children over to human traffickers.

And before any of you cry about the source:

Snopes even acknowledged it was true

I don't get it. What's so powerful about this picture? My daughter crys like that when she doesn't get a cookie... that's what kids that age do, cry historically over even the most middle adversity.

Now granted this child was going though more than a middle adversity; but if I didnt hear all the other information and disinformation about the topic I wouldn't get the point of this picture. I'd probably think it was about Trump stealing her cookie ... how can that be thought of as powerful?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

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.

That article doesn’t state she was being taken from her mom either. It says her mom was being “detained”.

That’s it. Detained doesn’t mean arrested, as anyone who’s had a police officer detain them for questioning knows.

so you don't think it could be misconstrued in any way huh? His commentary is not ambiguous not leading in any way?
There are lots of times both sides are dishonest with each other. this is one of them, and you are not being honest with me or yourself. Stop lying. just stop.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: face23785
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.

Art is art, and news is news.

This is provocative cover art.

People trying to claim that art is news (or in this case that art is "fake news") represents a huge part of the political problem we have here in the U.S..

So when you're presenting a false narrative, you just call it art and it's all good? Let's not pretend the media didn't run full steam ahead with the artistically-presented false narrative either.

Oh no! Look at this upcoming New Yorker cover! Talk about propaganda! Those aren't even real kids! Everyone knows the Statue of Liberty is made of metal and cement, so kids couldn't really hide in her skirt! Lying the New Yorker!

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
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?

John Moore, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer for Getty Images, has been photographing immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border for years. This week one of his pictures became the most visible symbol of the immigration debate in America. “This one was tough for me. As soon as it was over, they were put into a van. I had to stop and take deep breaths,” Moore told TIME Tuesday, describing his reaction to the scene of a two-year-old Honduran girl crying as her mother was being detained in McAllen, Texas. “All I wanted to do was pick her up. But I couldn’t.” John Moore—Getty Images John Moore—Getty Images Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine.

you play stupid a bit too well.

Again, where does it imply they were separated?

Perhaps I am a bit stupid. I understand the difference between "separated" and "detained".

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: underwerks

Ironic position, considering the many 'dog-whistle' believing theorists...

Articles says: ....'detained' ...and the very next paragraph says:

Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine.

The implication and fuzziness are purposeful. Period.

Not ironic, just correct.

For everyone who is confusing being detained with being arrested:

"Arrested" means you have been taken into custody and can't leave. You can be "detained" for a short period of time if a police officer or other person believes you may be involved in a crime

www.knowmyrights.org...

These are two specific legal terms that law enforcement use, both signifying different things. The outrage in the OP is based on a misunderstanding of that.

Fuzziness? Maybe only to people who take news stories at face value. I assumed most people weren’t that naive.

a reply to: Arnie123

You know damned well what Time Magazine was getting at, the implications were clear as day.

So they didn't actually say it or give any other context?

Ok.

They figured, "Hey, perfect way to smear Trump and his admin on the current issues!!"

Source please.

a reply to: face23785

WOW!
Looks like Obama didn't think keeping little children in cages was nasty enough.

WHY does Obama hate little Central American children so very VERY much?

Flashback: Obama Administration Placed Central American Children with Human Traffickers

www.westernjournal.com...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

You know damned well what Time Magazine was getting at, the implications were clear as day.

So they didn't actually say it or give any other context?

Ok.

They figured, "Hey, perfect way to smear Trump and his admin on the current issues!!"

Source please.

Read the link in my post.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

and it appears it will remain that way because, basically, your ego is too fragile to be honest about being presumptuous warping into this thread reading and retaining via your preconceived biases about me and when you were caught out in your presumptuousness via me asking for where I said stuff, you became unhinged and suddenly knew she was never separated in the first place so as to save your embarrassment.

Triggered a bit, huh?

I can see why. People do not like being called out for dishonesty. Sad you choose to be, though, when there is no reason to be so.

Unless, of course, you can prove you knew she wasn't and you can acknowledge the Honduran government and fathers comments that she was not separated. Why would the Honduran government and father say that Introvert, why???

To satisfy idiots that look in to things without asking for complete context, such as yourself.

If Time's intent was as you claim, you fell right in to it.

a reply to: IAMTAT

You should impeach Obama then.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's piss weak. - you need to search deeper and darker for the good sh!t - like this dude I found a while back. This would be an awesome dog whistle magazine cover, much better than the one you just posted....