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

originally posted by: Arnie123

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.

I can't. It's blocked from reading.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

Of course, just look at the OP. This story is being intentionally misconstrued. And you’re defending that interpretation of it, because politics.

It’s not me who’s misconstruing this article and making false assumptions. I’m operating off of what the article actually said, not someone’s interpretation of it.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

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.

Of course, just look at the OP. This story is being intentionally misconstrued. And you’re defending that interpretation of it, because politics.

It’s not me who’s misconstruing this article and making false assumptions. I’m operating off of what the article actually said, not someone’s interpretation of it.

From what I understand, the article hasn't even been published. So without complete context, it appears people are jumping to conclusions.

originally posted by: face23785
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.

I'm not presenting any false narrative.

If you find factual inaccuracies in the magazine's text, then by all means "fake news" it up, but to cry "fake news" over timely and provocative cover art is absurd and merely serves as deflection from the greater issue.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Interpretation:

"because you're a triggered idiot Sublimecraft (also, I still won't articulate why the father or Honduran gov commented that she was never separated, otherwise my whole house of cards comes crumbling down, so I'll just say that they said it to trigger idiots like you, yep, that'd learn em)"

originally posted by: face23785

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.

Gotta give 'em credit, they know their audience. Re-stoke the outrage and keep it going! Can't have them getting distracted by other things going on. "Hey you- don't watch that, watch this!"

a reply to: Sublimecraft


My post is of real magazine cover, The New Yorker's upcoming July 2 cover. Your example is nice. Maybe you can get some magazine to use it!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Arnie123

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.

I can't. It's blocked from reading.

lol, right 😏

Shutting down lefties all in a days work 😌

a reply to: Sublimecraft
If we agree that the woman was never separated from her child, what’s the argument?

TIME never said she was separated from her child. MSM never said she was separated from her child. No one ever said she was separated from her child.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

"because you're a triggered idiot Sublimecraft (also, I still won't articulate why the father or Honduran gov commented that she was never separated, otherwise my whole house of cards comes crumbling down, so I'll just say that they said it to trigger idiots like you, yep, that'd learn em)"

You request as to the father and the Honduran government is absurd. How would I know why they commented that way?

My point remains regardless of their intent. What makes you think the father's comments or the Honduran government's comments changes anything? Is that some sort of appeal to authority logical fallacy?

What you are doing is deflecting from the fact that Time has not, as of yet, implied or stated she was separated from her parents and your OP is one massive assumption, rooted in ignorance.

The least you could do is pull the tiny bit if integrity you may have, which is an assumption on my part, and engage the ATS members with a bit of honesty.

There's plenty of fake news out there to expose. This isn't the way to do it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

You should impeach Obama then.

So you don't really care that Obama placed Central American children with human traffickers?

WHY NOT?...Because it was Obama?

Always the same old few that invade a thread and do absolutely nothing other than dance around in circles. The painful part is they actually believe they got the moves.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Arnie123

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.

I can't. It's blocked from reading.

lol, right 😏

Shutting down lefties all in a days work 😌

Sure. Whatever makes you feel better.

Please post a source that does not require payment or removal of ad/virus protection.

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

The only one that I see actually having made that claim was CNN's Chris Cillizza, who is definitely a tool, and even he corrected his piece.

I saw the photog interviewed (it may even have been on CNN) a few days back and was asked if he knew what happened to the girl and her mother and he said he did not.

Furthermore, I just found an interview of him with NPR (which, unlike TIME, is actually funded with tax dollars), from 5 days ago and he sates the same there:

After that, he says, the mother picked up her daughter. They got in a van and were taken away.

"I do not know what happened to them. I would very much like to know," he says. "Ever since I took those pictures, I think about that moment often. And it's emotional for me every time."

So the photographer didn't misrepresent. NPR didn't misrepresent. TIME didn't actually misrepresent. Who exactly did aside from sloppy bitch Cillizza?

Or is it more that it's become a quickly iconic image associated with this affair? I get that. Considering that she wasn't separated from her mother and the picture doesn't show a separation, it is odd that this should be the image most associated with child separation.

So I don't have an issue with it be pointed out that this girl was in fact not separated from her mother ultimately. I think's perfectly fair to do. Though I would also say that there are thousands of separations that DID occur, which were necessitated by the zero tolerance policy of referring these parents for criminal prosecution for illegal entry in order that they could be detained.

The thing is, those events take place out of the view of the public. Nobody has access to film that.

What concerns me is that you ()imo) framed this as the picture being used to push a false narrative and we all (should) know that children were being taken from their mothers and placed in detention centers with unaccompanied minors and in other cases, more strikingly, these #ing "tender age" facilities which I don't need a picture of to find stomach churning.

If I lived in conditions that some of these people risk life, limb and freedom to escape, with their children in their arms, I would do the same. Just like one set of my 3rd great-grandparents, who left poverty and relative famine in Germany and made a dangerous ocean voyage (losing two nephews in transit) to join in the great experiment we call the United States.

And let me tell you what. They'd have to shoot my wife to pry her baby from her arms. And they'd have to shoot me to shoot her.

I care about border security. I don't want the cartel operating across the border. I care about the media propagandizing but in this moment, I'm more concerned with how the President and others like him demonize and dehumanize these people and how it's used to justify, all partisan politics aside, what I consider to be appalling treatment of people whose crime is trying get into the United States to pursue a better life (which in reality means at best, years at the bottom of American society for themselves and at worse, horrendous exploitation).

Most of these people are not bad people. They're desperate. We should do better.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Always the same old few that invade a thread and do absolutely nothing other than dance around in circles. The painful part is they actually believe they got the moves.

I guess you're counting yourself as part of the dance troupe?

Cause if you ain't, ya should be.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Arnie123

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.

I can't. It's blocked from reading.

lol, right 😏

Shutting down lefties all in a days work 😌

Shutting down lefties with two line replies and broken links.

It must be Friday.

Hmmm, I wonder, what on earth could this cover, from 16th June, be implying? Why, why would they arrange such a cover if they knew she was never separated.

Why, why would they do that?



????????????????????

a reply to: Sublimecraft

You have to admit, it is effective.

Organizations like Time and CNN (among others) have been very effective in pushing their agenda.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Hmmm, I wonder, what on earth could this cover, from 16th June, be implying? Why, why would they arrange such a cover if they knew she was never separated.

Why, why would they do that?

????????????????????

Nice deflection.

Show me the same thing on the cover of Time, please.

originally posted by: introvert

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".

admitting you have a problem is the first step, so congrats on that milestone.

I'll go with the crayon version for you yet again.

The photographer who took the picture, used a child who just happened to be crying. The little girl wasn't taken from her MOM, she remained with her the entire time. But the photographer suggested that she was removed from her mother's care, when that wasn't the case at all.
you can read about it here.

If you for any reason think that the magazine cover doesn't suggest the little girl was separated, or the words of the photographer don't suggest that was the case, then you aren't being honest with yourself. You literally CANNOT be that stupid.