Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't see where your article shows it was common knowledge. The article's pic has Wasserman and crew missing if you note. A news agency is the one who called foul, and rightfully so. A simple explanation AND apology would have been great.
Instead, excuses. The point of this thread, besides watching the left continue with excuses here...
An "explanation" was given as the pictures were being taken.
What should they "apologize" for?
Your article says no such thing.
Why is this thread of fail still in the Politics Forum? It should have been moved to The Rubber Room about 8 pages ago.
Oh, and its not the collosal failure your flame thread is.
Oh but it is a failure. You're just too damn stupid to realize it.
An "explanation" was given as the pictures were being taken.
What should they "apologize" for?
Your article says no such thing.
I fixed the quote tags. Sorry about that, didn't catch it in time.
The blog post I linked to was the source of the story. That's where the outrage farmers got the story from in the first place.
Do you not see how illogical it is to claim that Pelosi tried to "cover it up" when the source of the story, a reporter, was told about it.
How can they be "covering up" something that they told to a reporter?
Yes, the quote tags messed me up pretty good. Thanks.
Your article says no such thing.
I fixed the quote tags. Sorry about that, didn't catch it in time.
The blog post I linked to was the source of the story. That's where the outrage farmers got the story from in the first place.
Do you not see how illogical it is to claim that Pelosi tried to "cover it up" when the source of the story, a reporter, was told about it.
How can they be "covering up" something that they told to a reporter?
Cover up is a strong word, which I don't think apples. My point was the excuses given, instead of continuing the apparent honesty to Congresspersons about the pictures modifications. As I read it, the reporter discovered the email, not the picture. Could be wrong.
From my article Doc: Pelosis office distributed the manipulated image on Thursday, sending out an email noting, this version has the four members who were late photo-shopped in.
News organizations ran with the story, questioning its accuracy as a historical document, since four members were not actually present for the group photo.
Ron Sachs, president of the White House News Photographers Association, said Friday in a statement to TODAY.com, "Today's 'doctored' photo is not a true representation of the moment that happened yesterday, which brings into question the integrity of photos released by the government."
From my article Doc: Pelosis office distributed the manipulated image on Thursday, sending out an email noting, this version has the four members who were late photo-shopped in.
News organizations ran with the story, questioning its accuracy as a historical document, since four members were not actually present for the group photo.
Ron Sachs, president of the White House News Photographers Association, said Friday in a statement to TODAY.com, "Today's 'doctored' photo is not a true representation of the moment that happened yesterday, which brings into question the integrity of photos released by the government."
I see that as incredibly ambiguously written. Which is why I looked at a number of other stories about it - and they all pointed me back to the NYTimes blog post as their "source" for the whole story.
This is only political because it involves Nancy Pelosi and it is a way to play gotcha politics with her and the democratic leadership, even though there really isn't a whole lot of "gotcha" here. A few members weren't able to make the photo shoot so they photoshopped them in so that they would still be included. It wasn't hidden or lied about and at the end of the day it is just a nice photograph commemorating women. If this makes the news cycle for more than a day it will be indicative of the slimy direction that politics continues to go towards and how people are continuing to make something out of nothing while claiming to still somehow be above it all.
From my article Doc: Pelosis office distributed the manipulated image on Thursday, sending out an email noting, this version has the four members who were late photo-shopped in.
News organizations ran with the story, questioning its accuracy as a historical document, since four members were not actually present for the group photo.
Ron Sachs, president of the White House News Photographers Association, said Friday in a statement to TODAY.com, "Today's 'doctored' photo is not a true representation of the moment that happened yesterday, which brings into question the integrity of photos released by the government."
I see that as incredibly ambiguously written. Which is why I looked at a number of other stories about it - and they all pointed me back to the NYTimes blog post as their "source" for the whole story.
Hence my could be wrong. Still, the article you found uses the photographer's original picture, so I assume the reporter was not at the photo session. It was upon finding the email that the story broke.
Actually, the more I read about this story, the more ridiculous it becomes.
As far as I can tell, it seems the doctored photo wasn't even released to the press, it was just posted on Pelosi's flikr account. The photos released to the press were undoctored.
Obivous fake. Hillary would want to be at least Gerring.
Actually, the more I read about this story, the more ridiculous it becomes.
As far as I can tell, it seems the doctored photo wasn't even released to the press, it was just posted on Pelosi's flikr account. The photos released to the press were undoctored.
I question that Doc, Ms. Parker fails to mention the other three Congresswomen who were also late. It sounds more like she took the picture and some antedotals from Pelosi to write it.
This is only political because it involves Nancy Pelosi and it is a way to play gotcha politics with her and the democratic leadership, even though there really isn't a whole lot of "gotcha" here. A few members weren't able to make the photo shoot so they photoshopped them in so that they would still be included. It wasn't hidden or lied about and at the end of the day it is just a nice photograph commemorating women. If this makes the news cycle for more than a day it will be indicative of the slimy direction that politics continues to go towards and how people are continuing to make something out of nothing while claiming to still somehow be above it all.
Fine for our government to use digital editing techniques to misrepresent events / places where our politicians attend, then?
Wow.
This is only political because it involves Nancy Pelosi and it is a way to play gotcha politics with her and the democratic leadership, even though there really isn't a whole lot of "gotcha" here. A few members weren't able to make the photo shoot so they photoshopped them in so that they would still be included. It wasn't hidden or lied about and at the end of the day it is just a nice photograph commemorating women. If this makes the news cycle for more than a day it will be indicative of the slimy direction that politics continues to go towards and how people are continuing to make something out of nothing while claiming to still somehow be above it all.
Fine for our government to use digital editing techniques to misrepresent events / places where our politicians attend, then?
Wow.
It is just a photograph of female members that was photoshopped for pretty innocent reasons. It's not a matter of national security, national trust, national intrigue, or anything beyond a photograph that was meant to be positive and inclusive. This is just not news i'm sorry.
