It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MSNBC Uses Fake, 'Sexy' Photos of Sarah Palin on Air; Will Network Correct and Apologize?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Scott Whitlock is an elf, frankly I cannot believe this is being discussed.

What is the harm in these photos? (which are OLD BTW)




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
YOu have totally spun this. Read the article, it is about how people crucify Palin and they used the photos as evidence, citing they were faked.

c'mon people.

This thread is total bunk.


If I missed where MSNBC said these photos were faked, please point it out to me.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by debunky
You got it backwards libertygal

NO
You can *NOT* "Accidently" Splice footage
or when was the last time you accidently wrote a book?

Now, using a mocking fake picture in an obviously mocking piece? Erm... would you be suprised to learn that neither bush nor obama had small mustaches underneath their noses, and all those pictures were faked???
Do you think apologies are needed for that?


I do believe that someone could make a mistake in editing footage from rallies. I do not profess to know the inner workings of the Fox film editing studio. Each is welcome to their opinion.

That said, I have seen lots of mocking news pieces that didn't resort to using this tactic. Mocking has a lot of different meanings. People did it to Bush for years without using fake photos.

So using fake photos is ok to mock someone on a news show? Mind you, not a non-news station, like Fox? You support this?

From the story:



The host never admitted or addressed the fact that his network was passing off counterfeit pictures to his viewers. Earlier in the segment, Ratigan displayed an image of Palin in a short, black mini-skirt. This photo is also not real.


It's ok because it is obvious that it isn't a real picture, and that the piece is humorous. You would have a case if they presented this photo, demanding her to resign again or something like that.

Now to the mistake:
Mr or Mrs Editor gets the footage for the piece. (Or rather gets told that it is in Folder X, and that he/she should edit it to y length.
Now there are two possibilities:
Somebody put additional footage into folder X, from rally B. To do that he would have had to open Foder Z, containing footage from B and copy it into that. Now how could that a) accidently happen (how often do you copy files accidently?) b) exhibit the miracolous coincidence to be too footage of a rally in the same place.

Option B: Mr or Mrs Editor opened the wrong folder, loaded the wrong footage (despite already having the correct footage), exhibiting the same miracolous coincidence of beeing of a Rally in the same place.

And that miracle not withstanding, Mr or Mrs Editor somehow manages to edit without watching the screen to closely, totally missing the fact that the trees have become green again...

Of course they apologized! They couldnt really say "Damn, we didn't think anybody would notice that", now could they?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


If this person says that "it was a mistake", it won't even come close. This was done with malicious intent and there is no excuse.

Yet another example of the MSM gone amok and yet another reason to throw the lot under the bus


Originally posted by Libertygal

I do believe that someone could make a mistake in editing footage from rallies. I do not profess to know the inner workings of the Fox film editing studio.


Well, I do have an intimate knowledge of a newsroom and the editing process. There is NO WAY that the editor could have made a "mistake" like editing in the wrong footage. Hannity's mea culpa was laughable to those in the industry.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by shrike071]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
Using the wrong footage can be explained as an error or mistake, because the host was not the one who does the editing, but I feel it is a bit different when a news organization uses photo's they had to know were faked.


MSNBC should apologize, they certainly have showed there true colors since Obama was elected.

But to make excuses for Fox News?! Are you kidding? They have been caught red handed doing this time and time again and alot of other things to. FOX and MSNBC are the most biased news networks on television. The other ones don't do it as blatantly as them but they still do it.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by nixie_nox
YOu have totally spun this. Read the article, it is about how people crucify Palin and they used the photos as evidence, citing they were faked.

c'mon people.

This thread is total bunk.


If I missed where MSNBC said these photos were faked, please point it out to me.

Thanks


You haven't even watched the full video, that 30 second clip wasn't even 1/3 of it, I haven't watched it either but he knows something that we don't. I'll make up my mind I guess when I see the full video and don't have to trust an obvious biased site.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
UPDATE:

twitter.com...


Today we aired some photoshopped pictures from the internet of Sarah Palin. It was a dumb producer mistake and we apologize for the error.
4:56 PM Nov 13th from web



edit to fix bracket

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Libertygal]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
I'm not fascinated with her; I just hate her.

It's also inaccurate that she's 'the only one in the republican party drawing crowds' uh....forget Ron Paul?


YOU HATE her?

Are you serious?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join