PDA

View Full Version : remember that tie thing? article claims minorities digitally added to video


zimv20
May 30, 2003, 03:17 AM
link (http://www.nuvo.net/news/archive/003751.html#003751)


Bush event misrepresented audience

May 28, 2003 :: Comments (2)

By now, various national media have reported upon George Bush?s visit to Indianapolis, and the extent to which his handlers manipulated the images of the crowd in attendance. The New York Times and CNN, among others, detailed White House efforts to encourage attendees of Bush?s speech to remove their ties, so that their appearance would more represent the stereotype of ordinary Hoosiers.

What NUVO has recently turned up goes well beyond asking individuals to remove their ties, however.

?That was the first thing,? said an Indianapolis resident who attended the speech and wishes to remain anonymous. ?They told us to take off our ties. That was OK by me, mine was half-choking me anyways. I hate ties. But then, right before they started broadcasting, they stopped us again.?

The anonymous source said that White House handlers approached dozens of people in the crowd, distributing white, button-down shirts.

?I guess they didn?t like the fact that my shirt was made in Pakistan,? explained the source. ?They wanted us to wear shirts that were made in the United States.?

After the incident of the shirts, the speech and celebration continued without apparent incident.

However, it was after the event that the real trouble began. Television broadcasts of the Bush speech, distributed locally as well as nationally and internationally, reveal a computer generated audience as a backdrop for the president.

?That?s why I called you guys,? said the source. ?When I tuned in to the TV news that night, and saw what they?d done, I just could not believe it.?

The source said he spotted himself in the audience, but that the woman beside him was black, not white.

?I should know,? the source quipped. ?She?s my wife and last time I looked she was white.?

NUVO was able to locate a smuggled amateur video of the Bush event, and by matching that document with the subsequently broadcast visuals, it?s clear that the Bush handlers manipulated the images of the audience to reflect more diversity of age and race than truly existed.

In the fabricated broadcasts, blacks, Latinos and whites are evenly distributed in number, with the occasional Asian, Native American and Pacific Islander. Also evident are numerous hip-looking young people, ogling the president with absolute attentiveness.

Our raw footage reveals an audience of predominantly white, middle-aged people, picking their noses, placing fingers in their ears and digging around in a circular motion, prying crusty matter out of their eyes, as well as one gentleman who was flossing his teeth with thread he plucked from his frayed sock.

We would show you the stunning contrast between the two video versions, but unfortunately you are reading a newspaper, which makes moving images almost impossible to convey with any verisimilitude.

?It just made me sick,? said the source, referring to whatever it was he was talking about. ?You can?t believe anything these days anymore.

?But,? he added, smiling, ?I?ll probably go ahead and vote for Bush next time anyways. I think he?s a great leader.?


fwiw, this is the first i've seen this site. i cannot attest to its accuracy.

Zaid
May 30, 2003, 05:10 AM
WTF??

If this is true....

how does anyone get away with something like this?

How is it that the tv media dont have their own camera's there, or at least their own reporters who would say that the footage is bogus?

I'm still finding it very hard to believe that even a politician would do something like this.

What's the reliablility of the source?

cc bcc
May 30, 2003, 05:15 AM
I can't believe this. If it were true, things are getting spooky and it would mean that your president might actually be a real baboon with an actor composited on top of him. Makes sense..

Ugg
May 30, 2003, 01:38 PM
This is getting really scary. When is the media going to be forced to alter their video and photos of the prez to reflect his ideals?

Along with that Made in Canada movie of 9-11 glorifying him, this is too much. Where will it end?

zimv20
May 30, 2003, 03:03 PM
update: it was a hoax. please disregard.

cc bcc
May 30, 2003, 05:24 PM
:D

Backtothemac
May 31, 2003, 12:03 PM
See, you guys took it as literal, at least partially. And, it was a flat out lie. That happens a lot in the media towards both parties, and it is wrong.

Damn wrong. Example. What happened to Gary Hart. I thought the man would have made a great president. Nothing was actually known, but we all know about "Monkey Business".

zimv20
May 31, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
See, you guys took it as literal, at least partially. And, it was a flat out lie. That happens a lot in the media towards both parties, and it is wrong.

it wasn't a lie, really, it was a prank. like when the chinese press picked up that onion report on congress demanding a retractable dome.

cc bcc
May 31, 2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
See, you guys took it as literal, at least partially. And, it was a flat out lie. That happens a lot in the media towards both parties, and it is wrong.

Damn wrong. Example. What happened to Gary Hart. I thought the man would have made a great president. Nothing was actually known, but we all know about "Monkey Business".

What do you mean "See" ? Are you trying to finish a point that you made somewhere else?

What do you mean with us taking it literally? Did we say we believed this?

I do get your point about being manipulated easily by the media, it happens to all of us. I did not see that happening here though.

QCassidy352
May 31, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Damn wrong. Example. What happened to Gary Hart. I thought the man would have made a great president. Nothing was actually known, but we all know about "Monkey Business".

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong about the facts here, but here is my understanding. Hart was asked if he was having an affair. He denied it, and then dared reporters to follow him around so that they would see he was telling the truth. Reporters then caught him, with his mistress, on a yacht named "Monkey Business."

IMO, an affair does not mean that someone can not be a great president. However, if the way I understand the Hart situation is correct, he really has no one but himself to blame for that one.

sparkleytone
May 31, 2003, 07:14 PM
how could you NOT know it was fake. the bit about flossing from the spare thread from the SOCK. comeon.

macfan
May 31, 2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
how could you NOT know it was fake. the bit about flossing from the spare thread from the SOCK. comeon.

You might NOT know it was fake if either:
(1) You are a totally gullible idiot or (2) you want it to be true so badly that you suspended all semblance of rational thought for the duration of evaluating the article. In this case, the latter alternative is by far the most likely one.

It really is scary to think that someone's political views can so totally blind them that they think such a story is true. However, when it fits the fantasy, it will be believed, just like some Arab papers print that Jews drink human blood in their religious ceremonies.

mactastic
May 31, 2003, 11:58 PM
Hey the Chinese government bought into an Onion article about the US moving its capitol from DC to some other location, it was a big misunderstanding.

zimv20
Jun 1, 2003, 12:01 AM
holy cow, you guys, thanks for the bashing. can we review a few things said in the thread before it was known to be fake?

first, examine the thread title: "article claims." now let's look at a few select quotes:

"i cannot attest to its accuracy."
"What's the reliablility of the source?"
"I'm still finding it very hard to believe"
"I can't believe this."

looks like a healthy dose of skepticism to me. way to distort.

macfan
Jun 1, 2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
holy cow, you guys, thanks for the bashing. can we review a few things said in the thread before it was known to be fake?

first, examine the thread title: "article claims." now let's look at a few select quotes:

"i cannot attest to its accuracy."
"What's the reliablility of the source?"
"I'm still finding it very hard to believe"
"I can't believe this."

looks like a healthy dose of skepticism to me. way to distort.

Here's another couple of select quotes.
"This is getting really scary."
"Where will it end"

Even a tiny bit of common sense would have allowed you and anyone else to attest to its inaccuracy upon a first reading, and either post it with the notation that it was a joke or not post it at all.

This thread doesn't reflect skepticism, it reflects gullibility.

zimv20
Jun 1, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by macfan

Even a tiny bit of common sense would have allowed you and anyone else to attest to its inaccuracy upon a first reading, and either post it with the notation that it was a joke or not post it at all.

yes. i'm completely lacking in common sense. thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

the website in question, on the following day, posted that it was a hoax. i wasn't hiding anything.