I watched Obama's State of the Union speech as it was broadcast live.

The cameramen were very careful not to show that most of the audience wasn't giving an endless series of standing ovations. The majority of the shots broadcast were of the same section, just from different angles.

On the 2 occasions that the entire room was shown, less than half were cheering Obama on.

Pictures are just easier to manipulate.

Originally posted by Chance321
I "woke up" a few years ago. This photo brings the point home of why I take anything the media puts out with a grain of salt, it's getting to the point where they don't even try to hide their biased agenda. The "brain washing has already affected some, I mean for example look at the reaction Fox news gets.

The media is so arrogant now it's disgusting.

THey basically laugh in our faces while they are calling the American people stupid. I think they are starting to believe that they are invincible.

A good example of howeasy it is to manipulate the contents of a photo, or any other picture.The picture above is an example of the ease to create propaganda, for whatever the purpose.Look at the picture long enough and you find good and evil.

Its called PR control my friend, any true master of psychological warfare will take a seemingly deadly statement and not only negate it, but turn it against the speaker.

Like a Jedi deflecting the laser at the stormtrooper! But way more skill

With speech you edit their quote to say what you want them to say, with a picture you only show what you want them to see.

Great thread. S & F. And a BIG Hat tip to Inertia Zero for an equalling compelling thread. (Sorry I had missed it.)

Only to add that unaltered photos can also be used to persuade. Many times an inopportune moment will be chosen to embarrass or influence. There have been quite a few recent ones with Obama. (bowing, looking at female's rear and not assisting someone with a cane to name a few.) Perspective, context and timing all play a vital role.

And one of my favorites:



No manipulation required!

What's that old expression. Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see?

Regards...kk


[edit on 24-2-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by tyranny22
F'd and the S.

I don't disagree with your point whatsoever.

But, about this photo ...

I understand why the "manipulation" (if you want to call it that – I'll call it appropriately cropping an image) was done. In the photo the man that is being detained is clearly no threat to the GI's in the picture. They're giving him water. The soldier standing next to the detainee (with his knee in the picture) is not holding the gun. Another soldier behind him is holding the gun. It's not pointed at his head. In fact, if the gun were to go off, the round wouldn't even hit the detainee. It's being held in a safe position. I can tell by the way the M4 is being braced by the secondary hand.

The crop in the photo was correct.

Had the gun been intended to cover the detainee - perhaps intentionally pointed at his head - then I could understand someone calling a crop like this "manipulation" ... this however, IMO, is not the case.

EDIT: To clarify ... I agree that media manipulation is a constant and vile thing ... however, I think you present a bad example using this image. If the un-cropped image had been used as an example of brutality or cruel treatment of detainees, then I would argue, as I don't believe this image shows that. It's just a bad angle.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by tyranny22]

i think you miss the point. as soon as you get into bad angles or the specifics of how his sewcondary hand embraces his gun you are reading 10x as much into it than most people will. if the photographer sends you (say you work for the msm) a few photos from the event, including the one above. if the media is presenting the war as being bad regularly, the trooops as being bad, perhaps the government being bad, the general foreign policy as bad or any number of other things then the msm will have to choose and crop what images they got to best serve their agenda. if they want the public to think our soldiers are cruel then the pic on the left will be shown. how many people do you really think will star closely at the soldier's secondary hand embracing the gun to accurately determine what the soldier is doing? less than 1% i think you can safely say. at a quick glance all the left image looks like is a man being held down with a gun pointed to his head.

similarly if the paper is conservative and they think the army is not harsh enough with 'the enemy' then they can show the pic on the right to make it seem like the army is worrying more about helping the enemy than killing them.

whatever the agenda will be will vary from picture to picture and story to story and each depending on news source too. what this thread is trying to prove is how easily people will be fooled into seeing one thing because the media manipulate and decide which parts of which images are acceptable for whatever message they wish to put across. and like it or not, 99% of people won't see the left image and suspect that the guy is being treated nicely and getting water or help, after all why would you think that when you can't see it happening?

for those who think cropping is not manipulation you are missing the point. the message and the things people will deduct from looking at the image can be totally put one side or another entirely depending on cropping and that is inherently manipulative of the media since they are limiting that which you can see and choosing it to give you a specific thought about what you are seeing. the images above demonstrate that quite excellently.