dangie
Established Member
I think the BBC’s ethos is ‘Good news is bad, but bad news is good’.… but it’s clear to me that the BBC remains one of the most unbiased ones.…
I think the BBC’s ethos is ‘Good news is bad, but bad news is good’.… but it’s clear to me that the BBC remains one of the most unbiased ones.…
Watch it, mate, I genuinely used that strapline in a satirical letter to the Orpington and Kentish Times when I briefly co-owned a business in that town in the 1980s - they even published it!I will sign off as "Offended of Orpington" whilst wondering what Mrs Trellis from North Wales thinks of the matter in hand......
Incorrect. The public, by and large, love celebrity gossip. The media, by and large, then follow. It's a continual 'dumbing down' spiral. (Apoligies, I detest the expression 'dumbing down' - it's an insult to dumb people - but it's the easiest term to use.)The media by and large love celebrity gossip. When that gossip is coming from the royals, that love goes up by an order of magnitude. I don't know what came first, the media giving gossip attention or the public's desire for it, but it's now a feedback loop that will be very difficult to break.
And if the Sun or Mail had put "MP defects to Farage" or "Haiti on the brink of Civil War" on their front page, how many sales and hits do you think they'd have got today?I would like to say "slow news day" but there is important stuff going on that's been pushed down the running order by this. Domestically a sitting MP has defected to the Farage Party, and internationally Haiti is on the brink of a civil war. It's pathetic, once again the media is self obsessed, as it was with the Huw Edwards thing, and Philip Schofield.
Yeah, difficult one. When in the dark room printing steam loco photos, I certainly darkened the smoke from locos to enhance the image. Were the photo for a news report, ie supposedly reporting 'facts', then arguably that should not be done. It's a fine line representing 'reality'.I don’t care about this case, but to me there’s a difference between a photograph that purports to be an accurate representation and one that’s been fiddled with to make it “look good”. I know that no photograph is ever totally accurate, but if someone wants to make out that the photograph is supposed to be of something “real” they shouldn’t fiddle with it.
Which one in the photo has more fingers than they should have. Is it a genetic trait?Nobody has mentioned the editing out of the excess fingers yet
Something to do with AI generated photos notoriously having weird fingers (though i think they are improving now)?Which one in the photo has more fingers than they should have. Is it a genetic trait?
Either way, the solution is the same: introduce widespread education of critical thinking skills into society.Incorrect. The public, by and large, love celebrity gossip. The media, by and large, then follow. It's a continual 'dumbing down' spiral. (Apoligies, I detest the expression 'dumbing down' - it's an insult to dumb people - but it's the easiest term to use.)
I wonder if the "Points of View" BBC programme is still running, as that allowed viewer comments about BBC TV perceived annoying matters.
I will sign off as "Offended of Orpington" whilst wondering what Mrs Trellis from North Wales thinks of the matter in hand......
100% - absolutelyEither way, the solution is the same: introduce widespread education of critical thinking skills into society.
At least the digital manipulation (however imcompetent) is more interesting than the original "news" of the release of the image — so important that it had to figure on each hourly R4 news summary on Sunday as well as getting the usual exaggerated TV coverage. Do we really pay a licence fee to support this royalist propaganda machine?I don't care because I'm a republican and I'd pack them all off to a cul-de-sac in Leicester anyway, it just goes to show than they're not to be trusted in the way they try to manipulate the media in their favour. The media is just the usual fawning rubbish but will also be annoyed about being made to look stupid.
Regretably we do, if we like it or not.At least the digital manipulation (however imcompetent) is more interesting than the original "news" of the release of the image — so important that it had to figure on each hourly R4 news summary on Sunday as well as getting the usual exaggerated TV coverage. Do we really pay a licence fee to support this royalist propaganda machine?
The tory donor racism row, although that's spilled over into today and is taking greater prominence over the royal news, so if they tried to suppress it, it didn't work.Makes you wonder exactly what bad news the Government slipped out yesterday...
Not quite .....“Woman edits photo” is how I imagine Private Eye will satirise this story.
I can’t believe this is even news. There are so much more important things that need attention from the media.
OK,so I got it wrong. They`ve edited him in !At the end of the day its just a family photo,its not like she`s edited out Andrew!
Not quite .....
"I mean that is what I'd describe as me in that photo, but what we can't be certain of is whether or not that's my hand."OK,so I got it wrong. They`ve edited him in !
Can't believe they have done that!Not quite .....
I'm sure they do plenty, but they will certainly get the subjects' consent first or else they'll be on the wrong end of a libel case (I imagine they get professional editors to do it as well while this photo was clearly an amateur job).'Newspapers' Editors and their photographers never edit images do they!