posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:59 AM
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.
Let me tell you how it works since I used to work at one of the biggest news papers in Denmark.
AP, AFP, Reuters, POL foto etc. have contracts with a vast amont of photographers. Once they buy a photo it becomes part of their even more vast
database of photographs and movie clips from all over the world.
This material is neatly catalogued one photo at a time, including dates, contents, where it was taken and thebname of the photographer.
There is no way this can happen by accident. A conscient choice to use a specific photo for an article HAS to be made by the editor.
In other words.... This could very well be propaganda with intent to mislead people.