Daily Kos :: Comments Doctored ad has legs

Let's remember (4.00 / 4)

That it is not the fact that the ad was Photoshopped that's important. It's the fact that this is a metaphor for everything that is wrong with the Bush administration.
They lie.
They cheat.
They don't tell the truth.
They are out of touch with reality.
This is the equivalent of Kerry accidentally running an ad which includes contradictory statements. The Bush team would jump all over it as another example of "flip-flopping". Well guess what -- we get to jump all over this as another example of Bush's dishonesty.

Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

by existenz on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 02:33:53 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
- This is ridiculous and petty (1.85 / 14)
  
  If the charge against Bush is that he lies and cheats, the chosen "metaphor" should be one where it matters. This is just a simple ad photo. No misrepresentation is being made--those soldiers really were there and there really were that many of them. They just removed part of it for dramatic effect and did a bad job of editing.
  This is just like the Mary Cheney comment. Perhaps not presented the best way but we all know what was meant. Take the moral high ground and forget this "story".
  
  by DU on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 02:51:58 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Were you awake (3.80 / 5)
    
    during the 2000 election. For some reason this is the kind of thing the media loves to latch onto.
    Is it fair? Probably not. But when the color of a candidates suit, brown, becomes a major issue of "who a candidate is" then you have to play the cards dealt.
    
    by Mike S on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:07:05 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Yep (4.00 / 2)
      
      Imagine if Gore or Kerry doctored a picture of soldiers. The media would be merciless. They'd portray this as a symbol of the phoniness and desperation of the Gore/Kerry campaign. And some people would be affected by it, especially if it fit into an existing "storyline" (which this does, if we spin it right).
      Would we prefer to win votes in a different manner? Sure. But since the media loves meaningless stories that seem to highlight a negative character trait, why not try to get them to hurt the other side for a change?
      
      by dtj on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:56:17 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
  - Moral high ground? (4.00 / 4)
    
    Sorry pal. I'm in this thing to win.
    I'll take whatever ground needs to be taken.
    If they want to make this a story, and it keeps the Bushies off message and on the defensive yet another news cycle, then far be it for me to complain.
    
    by kos on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:11:23 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Whatever it takes! (none / 0)
      
      Right on, kos.
      
      by RMo on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:05:48 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
  - Not a troll (none / 0)
    
    comment, although I obviously disagree with it. There's nothing wrong with wanting fair play and honest debate but we have to play the game on even ground.
    
    by Mike S on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:22:36 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - Disagree (none / 1)
    
    This is simply a one-day short story - a few sentences and a picture. The missing explosives is a week-long, emerging narrative - talking heads, footage, discussion. Giulani blaming the troops for W's mistake is an intermittent, competing-opinion dialogue spilling out over several days, a few he-saids one day, a few she-saids the next.
    The media maw requires each type of story to fill their voracious need for up-to-the-minute blather. There's room for substance, barking and nit-picking in every news cycle. This nit is ripe for picking.
    
    "I cherished my hate like a badge of moral superiority." - Mark Rudd
    
    by Bob Love on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:28:34 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Imagine if Kerry did this . . . (4.00 / 2)
      
      The news would be on it like flies on shit. Bush would "Gore" him over it.
      Make it a story - make it a big story.
      
      Will you help me raise $1000 for Jay Nixon who is running for Governor of Missouri.
      
      by aimeeinkc on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:53:58 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - There are certain moments that stick (none / 1)
      
      I don't agree. There are some small things that serve to represent the whole campaign, and for one reason or another we remember them years later. Like the stupid Republican claim that Al Gore represented himself as the inventor of the Internet (which of course he never did). This Photoshopping could be the same thing for us. This should be expolited for all it's worth for the next 24hrs. Let's see if it catches on.
      The point is, there is a substantial number of voters out there still looking for a reason not to vote for Bush. This shows what real phonies he and his crowd are in a way that anyone can understand.
      
      by quake on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:31:24 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Agreeable non-disagreement (none / 0)
        
        I was disagreeing with the notion that we should ignore this story in favor of more potent ones. I was trying to suggest that stories of various significance fit various media niches, and that "lesser" stories like this one can serve a purpose along with more substantive ones.
        Whatever legs this doctored photo may have, I wish it a long and prosperous run.
        I also liked the post below that put it in the context of prepared photo ops like Saddam's statue being torn down, not to mention Bush's fake turkey platter and the staged flyboy "Mission Accomplished" event. And I'd add Bush's single visit to a military hospital: photographers were "banned", but a Bush photographer just happened to slip in and record Bush's momentary compassion for "history".
        Scumbags all.
        
        "I cherished my hate like a badge of moral superiority." - Mark Rudd
        
        by Bob Love on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 02:19:22 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - But he said his name is George W. Bush . . . (none / 1)
    
    . . . and he approved this message.
    Of course, that doesn't mean he'll take responsibility for its mistakes. He's never met a mistake he couldn't disown.
    Yes, agreed, it's not of great consequence, in and of itself; however, seeing b/c surrogates forced to defend or explain the obvious "deception" in the image is a good thing.
    It prevents or at least limits the bush league's opportunity to spin the message in its favor, it renders the emotional rhetoric of the ad silent, and in broader terms it keeps the GOP on its heels instead of reloading.
    Perhaps the best quality of this trivial mistake is that it stands as a visual instantiation of the simple and more complete forms of deception that the bush league has executed over the last 4 years. It's worthwhile if only for its metaphoric value.
    Organized religion (and more recently Nazism) has taught the world never to underestimate the power of a visual representation of something, particularly when one's dealing with an abstract or complex issue, and in this respect there haven't been many such obvious images to exploit while there have been 100's or 1000's of deceptions that have been executed by the bush league.
    
    by camper88 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:41:16 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - I strongly disagree (none / 0)
    
    The ad is misleading, even if everything you say is true. What's the purpose of doctoring the pictures if not to mislead? Exposing it just helps to expose the numerous times which BC04 has misled the public and the ad itself is direct evidence of it.
    Besides, this is the type of stuff that people fall for. I do agree with you that there are worse things to expose by BC04, but, unfortunately, they're probably not as powerful as this issue, which had evidence that couldn't be any stronger. If everyone kept up with politics as closely as we do, then this wouldn't be a big deal. But this is good evidence to convince those who don't keep up as closely as we do that BC04 misleads us.
    
    Democrats -- Progress for the Working Class
    
    by rogun on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:45:20 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - If it's misleading (none / 0)
      
      Explain exactly what substantially false belief a person would come away with upon seeing the image.
      
      by DU on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:32:45 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - That the troops are behind Bush. (none / 0)
        
        It makes it seem like our bravest patriots support this despot. Like, see, the Army is on MY side. It sends the message supporting me is supporting our troops.
        Which is, of course, a lie.
        
        by nomes on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:02:59 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        The troops were there. They were supporting him. (none / 0)
        
        It's not a faked photo. It's a slightly edited photo.
        
        by DU on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:32:17 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - Cakewalk To Oblivion (none / 0)
        
        It's the assumption that facts are malleable, truth fungible, history spinnable and reality re-writeable.
        These people pontificate about "secular humanists" lacking the conviction of their moral bedrock, then act as if self-righteous pomposity somehow immunizes them from skeptical scrutiny.
        They lie when it's useful, they lie when it's convenient, they lie out of habit. They've been lying so long they can't distinguish reality from make-believe.
        They're on a cakewalk to oblivion.
        
        "I cherished my hate like a badge of moral superiority." - Mark Rudd
        
        by Bob Love on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 02:41:27 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - So, following your analogy (none / 0)
    
    It was just fine and dandy when the universities of Wisconsin and Idaho Photoshopped some of their admission materials to give the impression they had more minority students on campus than they actually do? Or when Edmund Morris created composite characters to enliven his biography of Ronald Reagan?
    
    Michael
    Musing's musings
    
    by musing85 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:20:13 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - No, that would not be fine (none / 0)
      
      If those schools did that and it was misleading, then it was wrong. But what is misleading about the image from this ad? Those soldiers really were there.
      If there were only 3 soldiers at the rally and they photoshopped them around to look like 300, that would be wrong. But no misrepresentation is taking place here. The podium was removed to make it look better, not to hide anything.
      
      by DU on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:31:46 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - We have no idea... (none / 0)
        
        ...how many soldiers were really there.
        
        by nomes on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:04:12 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - That seems about right (none / 0)
        
        If there were only 3 soldiers at the rally and they photoshopped them around to look like 300
        Sure looks like that was what they were trying to do. Besides, if you don't like the footage you have, you get new footage. You don't go messing with it. It's not like they don't have millions of hours of tape they can use, shot from a bajillion different angles. But no. They chose to doctor this shot because they didn't think anybody would notice.
        Well, welcome to the Brave New World, boys and girls. People will notice. And people do care.
        
        Michael
        Musing's musings
        
        by musing85 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:04:17 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - Moral High Ground (none / 0)
    
    You will be 100% correct on November 3rd. Democrats have taken the high road. Collectively, they have not been 1/10th as shady as the Republicans.
    
    "If the opposite of a pro is con then look beyond this. The opposite of Congress must be Progress." - Cage
    
    by Guancous on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:41:42 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - I agree with you. (none / 0)
    
    However, it invokes the memory I have of the photoshopped images of the crowd around the statue of Saddam being toppled. The altered photos made it look like a much larger crowd was there. I don't think that photoshopping 'scandal' ever made it beyond the 'internets' but to me it was a metaphor for the fake reasons given for the invasion of Iraq.
    Therefore, I would not completely dismiss this present inconsequential photoshopping because it is more in the trail of lies put out by the Bush administration.
    
    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS
    
    by Agathena on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:38:03 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]

View Story | 287 comments

Daily Kos Help

Let's remember (4.00 / 4)

This is ridiculous and petty (1.85 / 14)

Were you awake (3.80 / 5)

Yep (4.00 / 2)

Moral high ground? (4.00 / 4)

Whatever it takes! (none / 0)

Not a troll (none / 0)

Disagree (none / 1)

Imagine if Kerry did this . . . (4.00 / 2)

There are certain moments that stick (none / 1)

Agreeable non-disagreement (none / 0)

But he said his name is George W. Bush . . . (none / 1)

I strongly disagree (none / 0)

If it's misleading (none / 0)

That the troops are behind Bush. (none / 0)

The troops were there. They were supporting him. (none / 0)

Cakewalk To Oblivion (none / 0)

So, following your analogy (none / 0)

No, that would not be fine (none / 0)

We have no idea... (none / 0)

That seems about right (none / 0)

Moral High Ground (none / 0)

I agree with you. (none / 0)

Navigation

Menu

About