What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
136 Comments
- NoamSayin, on 10/12/2007, -23/+74A major US publication blatantly misrepresents a photo caption creating a distinct anti-Israel bias and seven of us notice.
We have a hell of a job ahead of us. - Zayphar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+53I can understand getting the caption wrong. In war, ***** happens. But in this case the photographer who was risking his life in Lebanon claims that the Time editors had a correct caption and decided to change it to a misleading and far more pejorative one.
That is just unprofessional behavior. Time should be ashamed of themselves. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49As if this is the first time? Anyone remember the scandal with GTMO guards ripping Quaran's and flushing them down the toilet that turned up false?
A riot broke out in Afganistan in response to this and killed 11 people. Yet somehow their credibility went unscathed. - illegalamigo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44Time Magazine marked as inaccurate.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29That was Newsweek. It was actually the detainees themselves that were defiling the Quaran. They put it in the toilet. They were throwing them at guards. They were tearing pages out of them. These details didn't make it into the story. The dead Afghans were unavailable for comment.
- Braxo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28The best part is, I saw the large version of that photograph and the fighter featured in that picture is standing in front of a large tire fire.
Another Article on the same picture
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/14/fauxtography-the-great-hezbollah-tire-fire-revisited/ - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18what does a story about a hole in the ground have to do with elections, the dow, or Christopher Reeve?
Whether or not it was bias or dramatization has nothing to do with any of that. Can we stay on topic please - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Actually the site is specifically pro-Israeli. read their "About Us" page. It doesn't mean they are wrong here, but they are not an unbiased organization.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Time credibility = Supermarket Rag credibility
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15nothing wrong, except the lies and made up stories being published as news and facts. Other than that, nothing wrong.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16This is so old!
I can't believe Digg finally gets to this now!
Where was the outrage when this was actually taking place.
Go do a search for "Green Helmet Guy"
That's the guy in the picture, he is in every Hezbollah picture taken. It's all anti-Israeli propaganda.
Hell, I bet most of you were bitching about Israel when the conflict was taking place. - bliz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Anna Politkovskaya, the murdered Russian journalist who risks her life to report the truth, "The duty of doctors is to give health to their patients, the duty of the singer to sing, and the duty of the journalist is to write what this journalist sees in reality."
- there, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"Just because they happen to be right doesnt mean its pro Israel."
It may or may not be truthful but telling only the truth you want others to hear does indeed make it pro Israel. (reporting is when you say truths your don't want others to hear too)
Right off the website
"Israel is in the midst of a battle for public opinion – waged primarily via the media. To ensure Israel is represented fairly and accurately"
"As an organization dedicated to defending Israel against prejudice in the Media"
"we aim to provide educational tools and resources to anyone wishing to advocate for Israel."
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/page.asp?page=4 - BrandNewDigger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I know someone who was on that original CIA analyst team that told Bush there were WMD's. That person is a democrat and told me a few interesting things. 60% of their information turned out to be correct (a very high % for the CIA when it comes to human intelligence.) Another thing he said was that they knew exactly where Saddam's stocked uranium piles were. They weren't enriched, though, but they still had some WMD's from over a decade ago that they've probably since shipped out of Iraq.
The important thing to learn from this is that Bush did not misrepresent anything. From the information that he was told, he made the right decision to invade Iraq. If we knew what we know today that the WMD's aren't in Iraq, they've most likely been shipped out, what would Bush have done? Personally I don't see what their goal in Iraq is. You aren't going to convert people who have been taught their entire lives to hate anything from the Western Culture/World/Religion. What do you do, tell all the "good" people to leave and then bomb all the evil ones? Of course thats impossible, but I want to hear what you think should have been done. Don't give me any of that diplomacy *****, it doesn't work with leaders like Saddam. They could have assassinated Saddam, but that probably would have just caused a bigger problem.
The issue here is that neither Republicans or Democrats have an answer. Republicans don't know of a sure fire way to win, and Democrats want to just get the hell out of there. The republican way is best in the long-run IF we win, but hurts us economically until then. The democrat way would help us for the short-term, but a few years from now you can bet your ass the 6 million Jews will cease to exist when Iran gives Iraq a nuke to blow away the state of Israel. I think our only choice is to win this war, doing whatever it takes. There are some idiot Americans who think Rumsfeld and Bush are war criminals. They aren't war criminals, they just suck at leading an army. On the other hand, our terrorist enemies commit war crimes on a daily basis. From dressing in civilian attire (some of them) to hanging around civilians as a safe spot and then getting angry when we bomb them. The Media then reports that the US killed 10 civilians when the real story is that the terrorists just decapitated the Geneva Conventions.
Please, for the love of humanity, even if you are one of those pro-peace people, understand that we must win this war or it will most definitely lead to some sort of nuclear war. I don't trust the UN for one minute in handling North Korea or Iran. - Eljefedeath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Exactly, unprofessional and apparently unreliable. Not the center of some anti-Zionist conspiracy. They should be ashamed of themselves and we should probably not just trust Time without fact checking. You know, normal levels of responsibility when dealing with the media.
- spoonyluv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17So you're saying that because this web site is pro Israel, Time magazine should compensate by printing lies to serve as a propaganda platform for Hezbollah?
Good argument. You should be a politician or an editor. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Time has yellow journalists.. So yes they do make things up along with almost every newspaper in the world.. :(
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I thought it was their job to tell the truth w/o bias?
- bledbetter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Gabriel, the difference is that Israel is striking military targets that are *surrounded* (by my supposition, purposefully- ymmv) by civilians. See http://www.openfire.us/blog/archives/2006/08/3543.php
On the other hand, there are cases where Hezbullah has *blatantly* admitted to targeting Israeli *civilians*, yet the condemnation of them is muted, compared to the criticism leveled at Israeli "atrocities." I briefly mention that in http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/163-Too-little,-Too-late!.html
Don't take my word for it, of course. I'm as biased as the next guy, and nothing beats researching it for yourself! :) - glguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Since you seem to understand international law so well, remind us what it says about launching unguided missiles into civilian targets. I forget if that's bad too.
- bledbetter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@tehmoth
Did you miss the part where I said Hezbullah ADMITTED to INTENTIONALLY targetting Israeli civilians? That seems to be a pretty significant differentiating factor between the two parties from where I'm sitting. - spoonyluv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This has nothing to do with a caption, it has with a major media outlet in this country serving as a mouth piece for a terrorist organization that killed over 200 Marines outside of the other minor offenses of targeting civilians, kidnapping countless Westerners for ransom and torture and other such contributions to humanity.
- Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Ah yes. Those brave freedom fighters who hide behind grannies and blow up civilians completely at random. What noble warriors they are.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8What is the correct spelling? I use Hizb'allah as the Arabic translation is "party of god". Hizb = party. Allah = god.
- xencoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@asianwaste:
That hasn't been the "purpose" of "mainstream" media since the age of advertising became prevalent. Before then, newspapers were just that, information printed on inexpensive paper distributed en masse to the public when possible, or read out loud on the street corner when not.
Today's media isn't anything, including a shadow, of what "journalism" was back then. That's not to say that it was a perfect medium or used for simply informational purposes ( Boston Tea Party anyone ? ), but it certainly was more informationally factual than it is today.
Today's media has a single purpose, sustain or increase ad revenue. Period. Next ! - earthceltic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is definitely not the first time this has happened.
http://www.samsloan.com/cnn-gas.htm
CNN and Time Mag reported that the military used serin gas on a lausian city (bombing to the point of incinerating the place). The guys took photos of a destroyed city (the city had nothing to do with the article) and had some fake reports. The guys in charge of the article were fired and there was all sorts of scandal until they reversed the article and everything seemed to be ok. - spoonyluv, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Unfortunately that argument serves as an excellent place to hide, doesn't it? How are they embellishing quoted comments? Unless you claim that they are misquoting the source, they are only bringing forward the comments of a Time employee.
This is not the first incident where Time magazine demonstrated an agenda. The burden in my opinion is now on Time to demonstrate their credibility. - Eljefedeath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+101. Asking every journalist in America to lie to people without any of them ever revealing that they were ordered to lie would be a little out there on the probability scale, especially considering
2. People become journalists because they want to uncover and tell people the truth.
How do you refute these concepts? - stevenley, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Its a pro truth site.
Just because they happen to be right doesnt mean its pro Israel. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"soldiers don't get 'kidnapped', they get captured. and it only looks like hezbollah started it if you choose the starting point of your timeline 'correctly'."
So that means, by your deluded logic, if Israel nukes Germany for the Nazi deathcamps, they'd be totally exonerated, right? - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@stevenley
"Just because they happen to be right doesnt(sic) mean its pro Israel."
I think what you MEANT was:
"Just because they happen to be pro Israel doesn't mean the story isn't true."
The site is very vocal about being pro-Israel, so that isn't in question. However, that doesn't mean the story is false or an exaggeration. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"Was it liberals who made up WMD's"
No, it was liberals who made up their absence. - Pablo4200, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Sounds like starting that war was a really bad idea, doesn't it? Except that the Hezbos don't care how many people they get killed. In fact, they LIKE getting their women and children killed so that fools will feel bad for the evil scum.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11As I recall it, the Hezbos kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers and started the rocket attacks unprovoked. Sounds like the Lebanese chose their own fate by supporting the Hezbos.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"we will question everything you publish"
we should question ALL of our news sources, always - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We are nitpicking the fact that what is considered a credible news organization blatantly lied to its readers. When the news is supposed to report the truth and facts, blatant lies that they chose to publish when they knew they were lies is unacceptable. No one is saying what was done in the photo is bad, this is all just about how Time presented it.
- bledbetter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Using one's entire population as human shields tends to inflate numbers like that. Also, when you exclude "military aged men" from the Lebanese counts, the numbers of "civilians" killed is also far lower than what the press is reporting. But then again, why let facts get in the way, when raw emotion sells more papers?
- bledbetter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wow! Are we seeing a sudden outburst of conservative Diggers, or do Diggers just resent being lied to? In either case, I'm very impressed by the commentary on this article!
Here's my article on the story, which led to LGF's post, which led to the above article. Hooray for the internet!
http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/441-Tale-of-a-Supposed-Tire-Fire.html - Eljefedeath, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11The problem with this, or any other conspiracy, is basic logic. If Joe Dumbass can uncover the truth to put it on his blog then it stands to reason that all of these folks who went to journalism school can too. That means that the big bad evil corporate media has managed to get all of these trained professionals to join the conspiracy and lie to little ol you. It just doesn't make sense.
- flycatcher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Unbelievable! It's not like US news media needs anymore reason for the public to mistrust them. At least the Internet can help offset this imbalance in reporting the "truth".
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You ask. I answer.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/17/digg-it-how-you-can-help-conservative-blogs/
Good take btw on Time's egregious mistake. - floppyparty, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13I have always respected Time magazine and have been reading it for years. I hope that Time responds to this claim and we can find some clarification on the matter. I wouldn't be so quick to make a judgment until Time responds to this, as it is one side of the story. I hope this is not true.
- xencoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What ? You think liberals are the only one's who're allowed to express outrage and digg things up or down ? Bother you that perhaps some conservatives have expressed opinion on here. I wonder then about those of who are NEITHER, and look in amazement how both sides childishly carry on their bickering. It really blows me away watching boths sides complain about how the other one is trying to overrun Digg.
Newsflash! Digg doesn't belong to liberals or conservatives. Everyone gets to speak up !
So everyone quit bellyaching, and move along. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Journalism is a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting news regarding current events, trends, issues and people"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
note the word of verifying - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Truth is usually pro-Israel. Of course truth is always the first casualty of war, which explains the rampant anti-Semitism around the globe.
- spoonyluv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7WRITE TO TIME!
Don't get lazy and complacent. The power of a web site like digg (other than arguing the merits of Windows vs. Linux or PS3 vs. XBOX 360 vs. wii) is that it can deliver a few hundred (or thousand?) concurring opinions. Write to the email address in the article letters@time.com and demand an explanation. The only way to reach these greedy a-holes is to make them aware that people are watching and express an opinion. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6To: bledbetter
I was going to say that the Israelis have more precise weapons. As an organized military of a nation state, they actually have systems in place to produce better, more accurate weapons. Hizb'allah essentially fires into target circles with a radius of 3 miles. They hope to hit anything. Well, they pray they hit anything. As is the case when you don't control the destination of your delivery device, they hit civilain targets 99 times out of 100. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Are you refuting something in the story from honestreporting.com or are you just inserting unrelated information into the conversation?
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/15/video-when-believing-saddam-had-wmds-was-cool/
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm - Eljefedeath, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8In three posts you have yet to justify your original statement. You've just lobbed insults at people who disagree with you.
JUSTIFY YOUR ARGUMENT. Debate 101. Check it out sometime. -
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is