Fake news crying child used by Time magazine & CNN was never separated from her mother

[Wyatt earp]

Prove to us it's wrong , or is it just another "theory" of yours?

.

Prove to us this is a message board you Toad.

Prove to us you're not as Stupid as your one line idiot posts.

Now stop hogging the machine and give the other patients/inmates a chance.
`

Now I am getting you real upset...

 

[Marion Morrison]

The photo is not fake. It is a real child crying as her mother is searched by a border guard. The child was not separated from her mother and that is why INFO Wars calls it fake news, but there is nothing fake about the child crying as she comes across the border with her mother.

Of course your retarded ass doesnt get it.
They used that girl to bash trump over separation of families. That girl didnt get seperated.

I don't really care. Do U?

I do, it's dishonesty in the press and I don't like it. I don't have to like it, either.

 

[abu afak]

Now I am getting you real upset...

Prove it!
LOFL.
`

 

[Wyatt earp]

Now I am getting you real upset...

Prove it!
LOFL.
`

You are getting emotional

No?

Not a physiologist but.....i can tell when a woman gets upset with me



.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm surprised TIME didn't depict Trump stomping on the kid. I guess that comes with the next level of escalation.

 

[abu afak]

You are getting emotional

No?
Not a physiologist but.....i can tell when a woman gets upset with me
.

Prove it!
(and "physiologist" is the wrong Discipline you 12 IQ Clown)
More LOFL

Edit
Note below the last-wording Child Bear513.
No content, no come backs, just silly Junior High school twits.
What am I doing on a board with such dumb scum?
`

 

[OldLady]

It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

Ahh....but it doesn't.
And neither did the other fake photo of the small boy in a cage, or the other photo of a group of kids in a cage.
All were fake. All were used to exploit the subject matter to make you think it was something it was not.

Do you really want the media to do this?
To use faked photos both on purpose, or by accident via failure to vet a photo, to create emotion on a real story?
Really?
Saying it is wrong to exploit this 2 year old's image does not mean you cave in on your belief that separating the children in the manner they did was now okay.
It is two SEPARATE issues.
And dishonestly using images to support a narrative is wrong, even if the narrative itself is right.

I don't see it that way.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are getting emotional

No?
Not a physiologist but.....i can tell when a woman gets upset with me
.

Prove it!
(and "physiologist" is the wrong Discipline you 12 IQ Clown)
More LOFL
`

It's the right one with you, girl


.

 

[OldLady]

I'm glad to hear they didn't separate her from her mom. She's been through enough.

The Getty photographer who took that pic was interviewed fairly soon after the pic, and he explained that he didn't have a chance to talk to the mother, but he was thinking about the fact that neither the mother or the child knew what was going to happen once they reached the detention facilities-- that they would be separated (at least so he thought). That's what the new policy said.

Everyone who watches REAL news knew that. It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

it shouldn't have to "represent real news" - find a "real" picture of the story and post it. posting a photoshop cover designed to get you emotional on something is just that - designed to get you emotional.

what did she think would happen as she paddled her raft across the rio grande to get here illegally anyway?

The photographer explained that: It is not allowed by border security to enter those areas or take those pics. You know that.

She knew she would be arrested--she and the others paddled directly into the arms of the border patrol agents and requested asylum. She would not have known that her toddler was going to be taken to another facility.

I'm back to this thread because of an article I just read in another thread. From that, I'm wondering how in the world this mother and child were NOT separated. Trusting MindWars isn't something I usually do, but I didn't have any way to check it. This article from the National Review makes it seem pretty inevitable that they would have been separated. Maybe MindWars can explain how that happened?

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

no. i don't know that, oldlady. i've not made a life study of the situation down there so i have a lot to learn along the way.

but when i studied journalism - we didn't make pictures up to illustrate a point. we took a profound picture and let it say whatever needed to be said and all of it was based on the event being true and real.

if this is such a huge problem
and if families are being torn apart as a regular occurance down there
then how can it be so hard to find a picture that illustrates this truthfully?

it's like katie couric editing her anti-gun show to "illustrate" a problem that didn't exist naturally. it's a lie.

justifying it is part of our problems these days.

When the photographer TELLS everyone what the circumstances were, it is not a lie. I already told you, the photographers are not allowed in the detention facilities so they can't take pics of children as they are being actually taken away.

If the pic were taken and the media did not interview the photographer and make it clear that the pic was of a little girl crying when her mother was strip searched at the border, you would be right that it was fraudulent. That was NOT the case.

i'm a photographer also. worked my way through college as a photojournalist.

this *is* the case. it goes against everything i was taught about journalism.

"strip searched"

for the love of god oldlady - read the stories.

"Ruiz, who was not available for an interview Friday, confirmed as much to CBS. He said agents asked the mother, Sandra Sanchez, to put down her daughter, nearly 2-year-old Yanela, so they could search her. Agents patted down the mother for less than two minutes, and she immediately picked up her daughter, who then stopped crying."

The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother

she's inches from her clothed mother in this picture so please - stop making shit up.

I didn't make it up; it is the words the photographer used in his interview. I thought it was weird, too, since I worked at a prison and I KNOW what a strip search is, but I wanted to tell you exactly what the photographer said. I don't lie.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

Ahh....but it doesn't.
And neither did the other fake photo of the small boy in a cage, or the other photo of a group of kids in a cage.
All were fake. All were used to exploit the subject matter to make you think it was something it was not.

Do you really want the media to do this?
To use faked photos both on purpose, or by accident via failure to vet a photo, to create emotion on a real story?
Really?
Saying it is wrong to exploit this 2 year old's image does not mean you cave in on your belief that separating the children in the manner they did was now okay.
It is two SEPARATE issues.
And dishonestly using images to support a narrative is wrong, even if the narrative itself is right.

I don't see it that way.

I asked you a question.
Do you really want the media to doctor photos, or knowingly misrepresent them in order to support a narrative?
Yes or No?

 

[OldLady]

This is my thought:

There have been multiple threads on this and the pic is being shit all over by Trump supporters for a reason:

It hits too close to home.
​

Own it. Love it. It is what you stand for. Be proud and leave alone the people who take the pictures.

 

[OldLady]

It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

Ahh....but it doesn't.
And neither did the other fake photo of the small boy in a cage, or the other photo of a group of kids in a cage.
All were fake. All were used to exploit the subject matter to make you think it was something it was not.

Do you really want the media to do this?
To use faked photos both on purpose, or by accident via failure to vet a photo, to create emotion on a real story?
Really?
Saying it is wrong to exploit this 2 year old's image does not mean you cave in on your belief that separating the children in the manner they did was now okay.
It is two SEPARATE issues.
And dishonestly using images to support a narrative is wrong, even if the narrative itself is right.

I don't see it that way.

I asked you a question.
Do you really want the media to doctor photos, or knowingly misrepresent them in order to support a narrative?
Yes or No?

I didn't answer that because I already answered it directly in my earlier post. You apparently didn't read it.

 

[OldLady]

Story is finished except for the whining trumpers. The photo, photoshop, whatever, is branded and will be a part of the trump legacy forever. People understand the symbolic message behind it an no amount of trumper whining will change the impact of the picture of a weeping child at the mercy of the horrible evil buffoon King Donald.

It is sad that this too is being turned into another "fake news" narrative. When a Getty photo and the interview with the photographer as back up are pronounced "fake news" or "photoshopped," we know the truth is in trouble in this country.

 

[Bush92]

Story is finished except for the whining trumpers. The photo, photoshop, whatever, is branded and will be a part of the trump legacy forever. People understand the symbolic message behind it an no amount of trumper whining will change the impact of the picture of a weeping child at the mercy of the horrible evil buffoon King Donald.

It is sad that this too is being turned into another "fake news" narrative. When a Getty photo and the interview with the photographer as back up are pronounced "fake news" or "photoshopped," we know the truth is in trouble in this country.

Oh please Old Lady...it’s the media bias. I love you by the way. One of my favs on the Board...for a liberal.

 

[Oldstyle]

The photo is not fake. It is a real child crying as her mother is searched by a border guard. The child was not separated from her mother and that is why INFO Wars calls it fake news, but there is nothing fake about the child crying as she comes across the border with her mother.

There was a child crying in the restaurant we had dinner in last night. Someone alert the media! Newsflash...children cry...IT'S WHAT THEY DO!!!!

 

[del]

funny, none of you trumplings had a problem with this fake cover



frauds

 

[Bush92]

The next thing liberal media will do is show Trump drowning a child in the Rio Grande.

 

[Bush92]

funny, none of you trumplings had a problem with this fake cover



frauds

Awesome edition. Great man.

 

[Geaux4it]

The photo is not fake. It is a real child crying as her mother is searched by a border guard. The child was not separated from her mother and that is why INFO Wars calls it fake news, but there is nothing fake about the child crying as she comes across the border with her mother.

I see kids crying with their mom's rather often. Try again

-Geaux

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Story is finished except for the whining trumpers. The photo, photoshop, whatever, is branded and will be a part of the trump legacy forever. People understand the symbolic message behind it an no amount of trumper whining will change the impact of the picture of a weeping child at the mercy of the horrible evil buffoon King Donald.

It is sad that this too is being turned into another "fake news" narrative. When a Getty photo and the interview with the photographer as back up are pronounced "fake news" or "photoshopped," we know the truth is in trouble in this country.

The TRUTH.
The photographer left out all lot of important details, also to produce a narrative that wasn't there.
1) That he witnessed the agent telling the woman to put the child down so he could search her.
2) That the agent immediately allowed the woman to pick the child back up after only a couple minutes.
3) That the mother and child got into a van TOGETHER.
This is called lying by omission.
4) After vetting the photo, and learning that the mother and daughter were NOT separated... TIME chose to use the image of the child crying with a caption "Welcome to America" and then use an image of the President as if he is the cause of the child crying.

If you can't see this is disingenuous and wrong then you are not quite who I thought you were.