Media manipulation at it's finest... or worst.

[Ducimus]

I particurally love the front page of MSN today.

http://stb.msn.com/i/37/1753F982AA36F9CA666E54A5D49B9.jpg

Firstly, the Color's arent beared by a singular unit, but by a desginated color guard. At most, all you should see is a guideon bearer on the observer's left. Secoondly, if you look closely, their look like their at parade rest to me. The "flag bearer" in that pic has his hands behind his back. Thirdly, this has to be the worst photo editing job ever published by a "credible" news source.

I don't claim to be a photographer, but i think the mainpulation of this picture was done deliberatly to present imagery that is meant provoke pro war patrotism in the viewer.

Yeah yeah, ill go find my tin foil hat now and shut up.

[Dowly]

I agree. That photoedit is terrible. :yep:

[JSLTIGER]

Anyone else suppose they should update their flag? The 48 star flag hasn't been used since July 3, 1959.

[sonar732]

Ducimus, I don't see why you thought you needed a tin hat. The complaint was against a photoedit, not the actual 'flag'. In fact, I agree with you and it makes the whole thing look cheesy.

What I don't agree with is the deduction that it's to

...done deliberatly to present imagery that is meant provoke pro war patrotism in the viewer.
With the subject as how defense department will handle the war in Iraq, having a cheesy flag edited into a photo of another photo wouldn't produce patriotism. On my end, it promotes discust because if they wanted to do something right...better off doing it right the first time.

[TteFAboB]

Liars. All of you. I believe the flag to be real. You're just jealous of us 48-star bearers.

Not really, that's child's job.

It was probably done to let the non-military reader know who those soldiers are. They should get a better picture next time, one that doesn't need editing. Apparently they didn't want faces shown. Anyway I really don't see how this provokes pro war patriotism. At least on me it provokes nothing at all, actually, ít's boring me to death now.

Here's another one currently on the front page:

http://stb.msn.com/i/22/CB0E2D9B15C510FF291C717C6C.jpg

Obviously this image is edited. Even if this man had three brothers the guy in the back has obviously been resized to look fatter. Also, unless acid has leaked inside the camera the yellow background is definitely digitally generated. I think this image was edited as such to provoke pro-suicide depression on fat people who can't loose 30 pounds in 3 months.

And another one:

http://stb.msn.com/i/23/324E486DBFE41939F0584DD2D974C.jpg

Here the person on the right has been deliberately cut off while the man in the middle can be perfectly seen. It's probably part of a derogatory campaign being driven by the cut-off subject on the right, perhaps in alliance with whoever stands on the left, against the man in the middle, as this image provokes in me pro-faceless-hands trust. To answer the question in the picture, if that man is a doctor, then I say no chance in hell, he is now associated with Junkies in my mind.

It seems like heavily edited images are pretty common in MSN's, from my first-timer observation. The one with the little flag does deserve a prize however, nice catch, they don't last very long on the front page.

[Ducimus]

What I don't agree with is the deduction

Somewhere in the recesses of that grey matter betwixted my ears i vaguley rememberd stuff i learned in college. Photography/art composition type of thing. The flag takes center stage, waving/fluttering in the wind. It's "held" by the troops in such a way to visually insinuate the ideas of sacrafice, duty, etc etc . The person in the foreground appears to be paying hommage to it. The overall message that picture sends, at least in my eyes, is very subtle, but seems vary deliberate in choice of center piece, background, and foreground. Composition wise, it would make a great propaganda poster.

[sonar732]

In a way I can understand, but it's more a discredit to the patriotism in that it looks like *#it.

[August]

Especially when you consider what is being said.

Kissinger says it's unwinnable. The specter of a draft. No the flag was not propaganda and yes for whatever reason it was added it was a piss poor job.

[Ducimus]

Meh, i didnt read the entire article. Just skimmed the topic/introductory sentences and blew off the rest as the usual BS.