The original site with photos that led to the questioning. The long arm guy and man appearing twice I will dismiss, but the repeating artifacts in the background are just bad. The edge of the photo where the editing took place looks pretty obvious to me.

So your proof of the lack of a crowd is a photoshopped photo of a crowd?

why else would it be photoshopped

Can you think of a reason (without reading the original site, which offers one)?

So your proof of the lack of a crowd is a photoshopped photo of a crowd?

Its simple -- just like a scientific theory.

A trick the media uses all the time is to give the impression of a large crowd by limiting their video and photos to a small collection. When the Bucs won the Super Bowl, they used the trick, and failed, by talking about a "huge crowd" in Ybor city, partying. The camera man accidentally zoomed out and, low-and-behold, there was a small handful of drunks on the corner. No massive crowd.

Now you're suggesting to me that with this major event, the toppling of Saddam's statue, that the only photos and videos are of this huge crowd from the ground while all the photos from building tops just happen to be of a moment in time when there happened to be a small crowd. I find this something that is a bit difficult to swallow. Find me the photo of the huge crowd from above and I'll give the event more credibility. But right now the only unedited/wide angle shots are of small crowds.

Find me the black swan.

I didn't suggest it was a major event - you did. Where did you get that narrative?

Can you think of a reason (without reading the original site, which offers one)?

Its hype and publicity. There is no other reason to edit the photos other than to make the news sell because they have the photo.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/eve2.jpg

The problem is that in changing the news in order to make it sell, it changes what people get out of the news and horribly distorts the actual events that take place in our world. If this paper had published a photo from above, it wouldn't have sold as well. Would people buy a paper with a photo that showed only a small outpouring of support for the occupation? For some reason, a lot of people don't want to hear that.

Now I'm not saying that the Iraqi people don't support our troops -- I know some of them do, but the editing of these photos and the selected camera angles give everyone the opinion that the Iraqis really really REALLY love us when the truth is that a comparitively small group came out to whoop and yell as the statue tumbled. We won't call it a "lie", but it sure was a great stretch. And even though their manipulation of events is nothing new this year, five years ago, or three decade ago, the truth, and your opinion, have been distorted by the media and its selected perspective.

I didn't suggest it was a major event - you did. Where did you get that narrative?

Come on, UT, it was replayed over and over again on the news for more than a week. It was the symbol of an evil dictator falling and will be remembered by people for the rest of their lives. Even a month later they kept showing that hunk of pot metal hitting the concrete and used it as proof that US troops were being welcomed with open arms.

Where did you get the narrative that it was a crowded event?

Where did you get the narrative that it was a crowded event?

Foxnews article detailing the streets flooding with cheering people of which I don't remember seeing any pictures. Soldiers kissing babies? Men running around in their underwear? Good lord, what a party that must have been! All of Baghdad must have been outside celebrating! And again, the article does not lie one bit, but it gives the strong impression that the crowds were huge. Initially I was under the impression that the crowds around the statue celebrating were very large, just as a lot of people did. Ask anyone around you if they remember the statue coming down and then ask them how many Iraqis they remember cheering and celebrating around it. I just asked a co-worker who responded, "I remember a lot. A thousand?"

Many people think the media is skewed left while many say it is skewed to the right. I think its skewed for hype, regardless of the buttons it pushes in you in order to get you to buy or watch it. In fact, right now a lot of people are under the impression that the Iraqis completely hate us and that we should, in no way, continue to be in Iraq. But a mere one-thousand people (out of an entire country) with RPGs, bombs, and rifles who have a dislike for the United States can easily give anyone that impression when you see it piped through a camera set to scary narration.

But man, does that stuff sell.

That article only mentions the term "flooding" once and it's not referring to the statue event.

[/b][/quote] In fact, right now a lot of people are under the impression that the Iraqis completely hate us and that we should, in no way, continue to be in Iraq. But a mere one-thousand people (out of an entire country) with RPGs, bombs, and rifles who have a dislike for the United States can easily give anyone that impression when you see it piped through a camera set to scary narration.

But man, does that stuff sell. [/b][/quote]

Ever surf some of the Middle East/Islamic sites on the web? This is a fairly typical statement made by an Iraqi on a discussion board for the Middle East:


"The occupation is not "benign;" we are being killed everyday by trigger-happy young soldiers. The conditions in Iraq now are worse than during the sanctions. We have, after 10 months, less electricity, no telephones, much less drinking water, more crimes, less security... etc. Those who say it is bengin are not in Baghdad and they did not see how bad things are. If they visited Baghdad, they were the guests of Bremer. They only saw the airport, the Rasheed hotel and the CPA offices.

Iraqi engineers are not allowed to plan for the reconstruction of Iraq or participate in the decision-making proccess. Third-grade engineers from Bechtel are the ones who are running the show. Bechtel is the only show in Town!

We were probably afraid to talk about one person, Saddam. (You know me, Felicity; I could not keep my mouth shut.) Now we are afraid to talk about all the 25 people runing the IGC as well as Bremer and the Americans. "

You can find not only a 1,000 more statements like this one, but 10,000 more. I think its pretty safe to say the Iraqi's hate us.

I couldn't agree more. Hype (read: fear) forces a consolidation of opinion (safety in numbers). The media keeps people afraid so their consumption is perpetual, and often unquestioning. Look at any group of like-minded individuals bred on fear: KKK, BNP... do they really understand their objectives? Or is it the security of homologous thought (and don't get me started on religion) that provides a basis for opinion? In other words, the media provides the fear that in turn leads to the formation of an opinion, rather than dictating actual opinion. The horse can be led to the water, but whether it drinks or not is down to how thirsty it perceives itself to be... (or whether it thinks it has been contaminated by terrorists).

It's skewed for MONEY!!! Money, money, money. I'm reminded of a Bloom County strip where my namesake is lamenting how slow things are for his law office. He hits upon a solution: "What this town needs is TWO lawyers!" One news outlet by itself would probably be fine. Once you get more than one and they're competing with each other for eyeballs, you've got trouble.

I knew I'd heard that name somewhere before! I miss Bloom County! (sighs) But when it comes to only one news outlet, as Bill the Cat might have said, "Pfffft! Ack!" What if the owner of the single outlet was a leftie? Or a neo-conservative? Or a born again Christian? Or a Moslem? Talk about skewed information! I think we need lots of papers and TV news sources, so we can get a better spectrum of coverage.