Ziggy, you continue to be a puzzlement.
I was responding directly to the two articles that
you quoted! You say you never implied anything, yet you post two articles that make that point, and essentially challenge everyone to read it. But you're not claiming anything?
Quote:
|
It's a rhetorical question. Why should we believe any picture provided by any side in a conflict has any purpose other than as propaganda for their side? Manipulated, staged, or just pointing the camera a few degrees to the right, and you can present the situation with your own bias.
|
Think about that one, Ziggy. I'll address how ironic this reutergate thing is in a sec, but think about Israel's position. They have air drones that monitor all of their bombings, the take numerous precautions prior to bombings, and even ask people to pretty please leave the place they intend to bomb. Israel exists under a microscope, so how much propaganda do you think they could
really get away with?
Quote:
|
everyone with internet access and their fucking dog thinks they know EXACTLY what happened 6000 miles across the surface of the planet, when they don't know shit beyond the spin of their favorite news PRODUCT.
|
Do I need to be in Qana to detect a photoshopped picture? Should average citizens sit back and just digest everything the mainstream media feeds them? I mean it's "sensational, not liberal, media" right?
Isn't it "about getting viewers, period. viewers = advertizing dollars. sensation sells"?
I mean it's like you "don't understand the most basic concepts of capitalism."