Originally posted by syrinx high priest
it looks more like "activist" punk'd the BBC with that photo, which they clearly distance themselves from labelling it with words like "believed to be" and "cannot be verified"
they ran with a scoop and pic and now look bad
I bet a lower level manager gets canned for itedit on 28-5-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Asktheanimals
The picture you post is a simple one. News agencies will often green-screen a "live" scene's background (to make it seem as though their reporter is there). It makes sense from a logistical standpoint... why pay legions of reporters to sit around within an hours' distance from likely news locations when you can simply use some footage (from perhaps a few hours ago) to make it appear as though they are present there?
That said - the OP's issue is a much more damaging act of deception. It's become typical for the media to use images that garner attention from the viewers as opposed to using actual images from the scene. The reasoning behind it is simple - and dangerous; particularly in instances like this.
The BBC may have received a report of what they describe as a massacre - but lacking images of it - use a picture they believe will "illustrate the idea." I see it often in poorly written articles about technology or other such areas where sub-humans are put in charge of writing articles that make them feel intellectually relevant for a brief period. Not that 80% of the population is intellectually relevant enough to catch the farce (which is why they remain employed, unfortunately). Anyway - they decide to supplement their article with something that grabs attention and is "related" as opposed to documented.
This is the result.
Which makes one have to question the legitimacy of the reports of violence in Syria, to begin with - or at least, to the extent that it is reported by various news agencies.
Originally posted by markymint
Interesting case. Sorry to go off topic a bit but I hadn't heard of the WTC7 one and find it far more interesting, though the general BBC conspiracy thing is good to look into! It made me look into WTC7 for further answers. The live feed breaking up after a solid 7 minute picture struck me as odd. I remember BBC showing random clips on the day of WTC of cheering Muslims which was quite blatantly interspersed misleading stock footage for dramatic effect.
The pictures from Houla, Syria, last Friday, are almost too brutal to look at. I have a 5 year old daughter and I know it's only luck of birth that separates her from this horror. But my shock led me to write this today as I know there is something we can all do together to stop this.
Originally posted by ugie1028
I flagged and starred this because of the discontent I have for main stream media sources...
VERY unprofessional... and VERY misleading!
1984 anyone? (BTW as sad as this sounds... that's my birth year) add those number thingies in my name and you my age....
But holy hell... reminds me of the CNN video of the reporters in Iraq... when they really weren't...