DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Warning to my fellow American Photographers
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 130, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/18/2005 10:14:31 PM · #101
Originally posted by gwphoto:

Boy what are you guys smoking. If you really believe that crap that the main stream media is feeding you, then I fear this country is in more trouble that I thought.


By mainstream media you mean Fox News right? They are the most watched "news" channel after all.
04/18/2005 10:47:04 PM · #102
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by gwphoto:

Boy what are you guys smoking. If you really believe that crap that the main stream media is feeding you, then I fear this country is in more trouble that I thought.


By mainstream media you mean Fox News right? They are the most watched "news" channel after all.


Fox .... News Isn't that an oxymoron?
04/19/2005 12:12:54 AM · #103
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

....and had the ACLU not defended Mr. Limbaugh, precedent would have been set in any event.... so this is in effect "moot".

Three reasons make it not "moot":
1) Without their involvement, there might not BE a case, but even if there was
2) Without their involvement, the result might not be to their liking. You have to admit that they ( the ACLU ) have deep pockets and broad support. They can wield great leverage that "normal" attorneys cannot.
3) WITH their involvement, they paint themselves as impartial defenders of the oppressed. HINT: They took the Limbaugh case for POLITICAL reasons. It's sheep's clothing on the Wolf, and the sheep are buying it.


Or it might be that the ACLU was defending a principle.

Good one, Judith. Since you imbedded the word "might" I must grant that your statement is a possibility - as was mine.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

From their "About" page:

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

I COULD claim that the ACLU has a lot of very smart lawyers on staff and so has carefully crafted the wording on their website for, as some liberals might say, plausable deniability - but I won't.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

It's my understanding that Palm Beach County officials violated Florida's constitutional right of privacy and state law when they seized Rush Limbaugh's medical records.

It's my understanding that such a determination is still awaiting court rulings. The latest appeal was only heard on April 7th, I believe, and the ruling has not yet been handed down. It would be presumptuous for anyone to assume that laws were violated apart from the court's ruling.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

For those readers not familiar with who Rush Limbaugh is, he's a radio "shock jock" on the extreme right wing who slams the ACLU at every opportunity. I'll leave it to people's common sense to determine why the ACLU involved itself in his case.

Why leave it to people's common sense? I'm sure that you have an opinion - so why not come right out and share it?

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 00:13:54.
04/19/2005 12:17:37 AM · #104
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by gwphoto:

Boy what are you guys smoking. If you really believe that crap that the main stream media is feeding you, then I fear this country is in more trouble that I thought.


By mainstream media you mean Fox News right? They are the most watched "news" channel after all.


Boy are you off on a world of your onw. Fox News is one of the only stations that shows both sides. They are not the culprit here. It is the rest of the media. Any by the way, just because Fox News is more popular, it doesn't make them the main stream. Main stream includes all those lefty newspapers too.
04/19/2005 01:05:49 AM · #105
Originally posted by gwphoto:



Boy are you off on a world of your onw. Fox News is one of the only stations that shows both sides. They are not the culprit here. It is the rest of the media. Any by the way, just because Fox News is more popular, it doesn't make them the main stream. Main stream includes all those lefty newspapers too.


This is all too funny how it started out in this thread as one subject talking about being harrassed or investigated for taking a photograph... Then turning into all this... It is way too funny... I agree with gwphoto though, Fox news is more in the right then the left.. How do I know that because Neil Cavuto has common sense and Bill O'Reilly has always mentioned both sides that I can remember..

I do think the story about the photographer is a little out there as to maybe its most hear say and got streched a little...People do this sometimes and we tend to forget.. But on the other hand it is happening to where some are a little more over cautiouse and think they are saving the world by calling about anything funny looking...

My entry for Breaking New Ground ..Someone had stopped out on the mainstreet in front of where I was taking this photo, I noticed out of the corner of my eye and then took my photos, and as I walked back to my truck they left... I am sure it was only someone concerned to what I might have been doing around a track since there was a bad wreck at the beginning of the year in another county.. Not to mention looking out for any trouble.. I would too...Anyways its the law enforcement in your community that you should talk to where you are taking photos, even amatures can get the word out to people about the possibilities of being out taking photos...Start a photography meetup in your community you will be surprised at how fast it grows and all the like minded individuals there are.. Then you wont have to worry about someone asking you to hand over your gear if they say you are in the wrong...



04/19/2005 01:05:56 AM · #106
Ron, go to this page on the ACLU website, read the most recent religious liberty lawsuits the ACLU has defended, and then explain for our edification, please, how those activities square with your characterization of the ACLU.

04/19/2005 03:22:20 AM · #107
Originally posted by gwphoto:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by gwphoto:

Boy what are you guys smoking. If you really believe that crap that the main stream media is feeding you, then I fear this country is in more trouble that I thought.


By mainstream media you mean Fox News right? They are the most watched "news" channel after all.


Boy are you off on a world of your onw. Fox News is one of the only stations that shows both sides. They are not the culprit here. It is the rest of the media. Any by the way, just because Fox News is more popular, it doesn't make them the main stream. Main stream includes all those lefty newspapers too.


Originally posted by tolovemoon:

I agree with gwphoto though, Fox news is more in the right then the left.. How do I know that because Neil Cavuto has common sense and Bill O'Reilly has always mentioned both sides that I can remember..


Wow. If what you say is true, then why do regular Fox "News" viewers (Bush supporters) have such WRONG opinions and perceptions about recent events? As indicated by this The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll that Fox viewers had the highest percent of all main stream media with 80% having 1 or more misperceptions about the Iraq war.

Ironically, the least viewed source of all media polled, NPR, had the lowest percentage of misconceptions.

Take a look at that study and then tell me Fox "News" is "fair and balanced".

I won't even get into O'Reilly
04/19/2005 06:49:00 PM · #108
I am a novice photographer, and a lifelong target shooter, hunter, and hand-loader.

The parallels between the two activities are striking and numerous, yet I am stunned at the ignorance regarding firearms I find among photographers.

When a talking head refers to a bolt action rifle as an "intermediate sniper rifle" I am amazed because I am informed. Saturday Night Specials, Cop Killer Bullets. Assault Weapons. All invented terms.

"Terrorphoto Lens" only sounds improbable and absurd because the "photographic community" has not lived in the same "bizarro-world" facing those of us who understand and enjoy firearms.

Imagine a world in which otherwise intelligent people equate cameras and child pornography, lenses with phallic symbols, photography with pedophilia. Telephoto equals invasion of privacy. Photo editing equals counterfeiting.

Taking pictures of a bridge = possible terrorism.

The first to come to your defense will be guys like me who are members of the NRA. The real American Civil Liberties Union.

04/21/2005 12:07:50 AM · #109
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Wow. If what you say is true, then why do regular Fox "News" viewers (Bush supporters) have such WRONG opinions and perceptions about recent events?


Or another explaination could be that it the majority of the people who watch Fox News are just not as intilegent as their counterparts. You can't simply blame it all on the news source.
05/02/2005 12:54:39 PM · #110

Just curious if you have ever been to the NRA headquarters in Northern Virginia? They have a very nice range there and my husband has been there several times. A friend of ours interviewed for a job at the NRA and was sent to a waiting room to fill out the paperwork. He noticed on the walls there were pictures of many people who are anti-gun and each picture has a bullet hole in their head. Very disturbing if you ask me.
I am not sure that I want this organization supporting me and my photographic rights.
Just to let you know my husband has a concealed carry permit. He has a 9mm and I own a 22 rifle. So I am not one of the anti-gun folks.
Karen

Originally posted by DaveN007:

I am a novice photographer, and a lifelong target shooter, hunter, and hand-loader.

The parallels between the two activities are striking and numerous, yet I am stunned at the ignorance regarding firearms I find among photographers.

When a talking head refers to a bolt action rifle as an "intermediate sniper rifle" I am amazed because I am informed. Saturday Night Specials, Cop Killer Bullets. Assault Weapons. All invented terms.

"Terrorphoto Lens" only sounds improbable and absurd because the "photographic community" has not lived in the same "bizarro-world" facing those of us who understand and enjoy firearms.

Imagine a world in which otherwise intelligent people equate cameras and child pornography, lenses with phallic symbols, photography with pedophilia. Telephoto equals invasion of privacy. Photo editing equals counterfeiting.

Taking pictures of a bridge = possible terrorism.

The first to come to your defense will be guys like me who are members of the NRA. The real American Civil Liberties Union.
05/02/2005 01:29:34 PM · #111
He's just a victim of political correctness...

You see, your friend probably doesn't fit the typical profile for an islamic terrorist. And although if we just focused the vast majority of our efforts on those who fit a basic profile, we'd be 10x more effective, 10x more efficien (per $) and 10x safer. Sadly, that is interpreted as "racism". It's not...it's simply statistical analysis. I mean, that is a good enough reason for insurance companies to sexually discriminate and charge me 2x the rates of the opposite sex. But not enough to take action to protect our nation.

So your friend got targeted. Why? Because when some muslim complains of racial profiling. Our Homeland Security agency has to go to court and show several dozen "white profiles" to prove that they are not profiling racially. It's lame. It's a shame. And it will eventually cost the lives of 10 million people.

(On a side note, I too have been stopped by police while photographing a sunset over a railroad depot. Checked IDs, etc. LAME!!!!)

05/02/2005 01:34:49 PM · #112
Need to go on record here - I am anti war, rather left and not against gun ownership. While I do not own any myself that has much to do with lackafunds and not with hatred of the weapons.

Originally posted by DaveN007:

I am a novice photographer, and a lifelong target shooter, hunter, and hand-loader.

The parallels between the two activities are striking and numerous, yet I am stunned at the ignorance regarding firearms I find among photographers.

When a talking head refers to a bolt action rifle as an "intermediate sniper rifle" I am amazed because I am informed. Saturday Night Specials, Cop Killer Bullets. Assault Weapons. All invented terms.

"Terrorphoto Lens" only sounds improbable and absurd because the "photographic community" has not lived in the same "bizarro-world" facing those of us who understand and enjoy firearms.

Imagine a world in which otherwise intelligent people equate cameras and child pornography, lenses with phallic symbols, photography with pedophilia. Telephoto equals invasion of privacy. Photo editing equals counterfeiting.

Taking pictures of a bridge = possible terrorism.

The first to come to your defense will be guys like me who are members of the NRA. The real American Civil Liberties Union.
05/02/2005 01:40:23 PM · #113
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Wow. If what you say is true, then why do regular Fox "News" viewers (Bush supporters) have such WRONG opinions and perceptions about recent events?


Or another explaination could be that it the majority of the people who watch Fox News are just not as intilegent as their counterparts. You can't simply blame it all on the news source.


Watch the DVD called Outfoxed made by former employees of Fox News. Very interesting look inside Fox news. They are as biased as CNN. I tend to watch BCC news when I can.
05/02/2005 02:32:21 PM · #114
You can't be as close to France as BBC news is and NOT be biased....

*lol*

It's ALL about the $ (or equivalent) folks...
05/02/2005 03:10:19 PM · #115
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I'd definitely be giong to the papers & television with this story if I were him (& if it's true). Did he get any shots of the "black SUV"? Sounds almost too "Men In Black"-ish.


Actually, the agents spoke with him at length at various times throughout the month, but they wiped his memory each time with the 'light thing'!!

JD
05/02/2005 03:22:16 PM · #116
I left work at Micron (semiconductor manufacturing facility) just outside Washington DC and was taking photos of some old train cars sitting on the tracks. There were no buildings close by, and the train cars had some interesting graffiti on them. They looked like they had been sitting there for a long time. Not long after I had started taking photos, a helicopter came in flying low and started hovering over me. I got distracted watching the helicopter and did not notice the two police cars that blocked traffic a couple hundred hards away where the railroad tracks crossed the road. The helicopter turned out to be a police helicopter. Someone driving by saw me taking photos of the train cars and called the police. The cops had a really bad attitude and were very skeptical of my comments that photography was a hobby and I was just taking photos. I unzipped my jacket to get my ID out for them and they noticed my Micron badges. Everything was OK after that. Once they realized that I worked at a reputable company close by, they believed me and apologized and left me alone. They even allowed me to stay and continue photographing things (including the police helicopter). It was kind of weird, but turned out alright. I wonder what would have happened if I didn't have my Micron badges on...

JD

05/02/2005 03:33:17 PM · #117
Once again....

IF we only PROFILED and used statistical analysis such would be extremely rare cases.
05/02/2005 03:39:37 PM · #118
PS - don't buy the "someone called...", that's bogus. No one calls to say "Hey I saw someone photographing trains"

But you'll see something in a lot of places where new roads, intersections and stop lights have been installed.

We have tons of these little "white" cameras all over now. They're watching....BIG BROTHER is there...

You think I'm kidding. I'm not....and lot of cell phone calls get tapped. Mine got tapped once. How do I know? I was talking with a friend. We were discussing politics, etc. post 9-11 and several terms including terrorist, bomb making, etc. came up. I heard a weird *click* and I was like "that was odd..." and my friend, she was like "you heard that too?" And that's unusual for both to hear it. And I mentioned "I bet our phones being tapped by carnivore". She didn't believe me. So we hung up. Called each other back a moment later. Now this time we decided to just say a bunch of keywords. I kid you not. We said a 1/2 dozen incriminating words and heard the same *ka-click* we heard before. Yup....something got triggered and tapped the phone. We were like "we caught 'em this time....see told you they were tapping etc. (Shortly after we expressed that we had caught them in the game we heard the closing dis-connect *ka-click*

So yes... BIG BROTHER is HERE!!! He's just not being "abusive"....just over-protective....for now.
05/02/2005 03:45:22 PM · #119
Originally posted by khdoss:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Wow. If what you say is true, then why do regular Fox "News" viewers (Bush supporters) have such WRONG opinions and perceptions about recent events?


Or another explaination could be that it the majority of the people who watch Fox News are just not as intilegent as their counterparts. You can't simply blame it all on the news source.


Watch the DVD called Outfoxed made by former employees of Fox News. Very interesting look inside Fox news. They are as biased as CNN. I tend to watch BCC news when I can.


Though I consider CNN only as biased as their commercial sponsors wish them to be, Fox News from the very top is a pro republican organization and it trickles down.

Today watching CNN they had about 5 minutes of coverage on the Iraq war, the increase in violent insurgency in recent weeks and the accidental death of the Italian secret agent and nearly no mention of how higher oil prices will affect our future. Then about 30-40 minutes on the "runaway bride" story from Georgia. In the previous weeks it had been Schiavo, Michael Jackson and other individual, local issues.

What kind of bias do you call that? Bias to report stuff that doesn̢۪t matter on the large scale while hardly touching REAL issues that affect us all? I thought it was National news, silly me.

Also for a much broader picture, instead of "Outfoxed", check out "Orwell Rolls in His Grave". An institutional analysis of the business of mass media in America and the world.
05/02/2005 03:54:26 PM · #120
"Though I consider CNN only as biased as their commercial sponsors wish them to be, Fox News from the very top is a pro republican organization and it trickles down."

[[[MadMordegon, I find this comment so funny. You've got an organization (CNN) of which what 70%? 90%? are registered Democrat (or minor leftist party, green, communist, etc.). So, are they not biased simply because they're more in line with your views?


"What kind of bias do you call that?"
[[[Probably a bias akin to Fox cutting off the president in mid-sentence. If Fox was "really" a puppet of the Republicans and President Bush would they really do that?

The #1 bias is $$$....
The #2 bias is right/conservative for Fox News and talk radio. And left/liberal for the other news networks and most print papers such as New York Times. (Though the Wall Street Journal tends to be more right leaning.)
]]]
05/02/2005 04:38:30 PM · #121
You forgot to acknowledge the biggest part of my post:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Today watching CNN they had about 5 minutes of coverage on the Iraq war, the increase in violent insurgency in recent weeks and the accidental death of the Italian secret agent and nearly no mention of how higher oil prices will affect our future. Then about 30-40 minutes on the "runaway bride" story from Georgia. In the previous weeks it had been Schiavo, Michael Jackson and other individual, local issues.

What kind of bias do you call that? Bias to report stuff that doesn̢۪t matter on the large scale while hardly touching REAL issues that affect us all? I thought it was National news, silly me.


What kind of bias would you call that?
05/02/2005 05:25:18 PM · #122
No I didn't....that's under #1 bias.

The #1 bias is $$$...

Let me explain....more people were willing to tune into to find out the mysterious tabloid news of the missing bride (especially as they played like whether she was dead or not, even after she was found). But such keeps more viewers tuned than....

"War in iraq continues. Oil prices continue their 45 yrs upswing...."

(and let me comment, Italian "Secret Agent" (secret) well that tends to make it hard to know he's an Italian agent. Doesn't it?
05/02/2005 05:59:18 PM · #123
Originally posted by theSaj:

But such keeps more viewers tuned than....


And that is the problem.

News is different from other business in America because we are suppose to be a democracy and in a democracy the people are suppose to be informed so as to be able to participate in government. News companies are supposed to have a task to keep Americans informed on the BIG ISSUES so they can then make decisions.

Main stream news today exists strictly as a business whose goal is maximum profit. This means catering to American's love for scandalous and drama filled stories. This also means not showing things that make people tune out, like is bad news, and showing the US in any negative light.

Put all that together and we know why Fox News is the #1 in the business.

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
-Thomas Jefferson


Message edited by author 2005-05-02 18:03:57.
05/02/2005 10:58:00 PM · #124
Originally posted by theSaj:


You've got an organization (CNN) of which what 70%? 90%? are registered Democrat (or minor leftist party, green, communist, etc.). So, are they not biased...?


Where do you document the political background of CNN workers? What about the people who make the actual editing decisions about what gets on the air?

And here is what may be news for you. CNN has gone way to the right in the past few years. We lefties hate it now almost as much as Fox. Here is why:

In August 2001, then CNN chairman Walter Isaacson met with top Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to discuss how to improve relations between CNN and conservative Republicans. Isaacson said he "was trying to reach out to a lot of Republicans who feel that CNN has not been as open to covering Republicans, and I wanted to hear their concerns" (Roll Call, 8/6/01). One GOP aide told Roll Call that Isaacson "said, 'Give us some guidance on how to attract conservatives.' He said he 'wanted to change the culture' at CNN" (Roll Call, 8/6/01).

Of course, there has never been any shortage of conservative hosts and commentators on CNN, including people like Bob Novak, Kate O'Beirne, Tucker Carlson, Mary Matalin, John Sununu and Lynne Cheney-- not to mention Pat Buchanan, who launched three presidential campaigns from his perch at CNN.
05/02/2005 11:08:39 PM · #125
Main stream news today exists strictly as a business whose goal is maximum profit. This means catering to American's love for scandalous and drama filled stories. This also means not showing things that make people tune out, like is bad news, and showing the US in any negative light.
[[[Sorry, I see the media portray America in the negative light all the time. And you know what...."Bread and Circuses" the people get what they ask for. Anyone who want more info can find it on the web. *shrug*]]]

"Where do you document the political background of CNN workers? What about the people who make the actual editing decisions about what gets on the air?"
[[[Surveys were conducted. 70%+ if I recall. Oh, you mean people like Ted Turner...surely he's not a conservative Republican.

Most of those who make the editing decisions are liberals. The people above them may be conservatives but are often just moneyists. And so long as the $$$ rolls in things are fine. Except the liberals began focusing too much on their agendas and to such a degree they turned off half of the general public. Thus money got lost. Hence, the moneyists respond.
]]]

"We lefties hate it now almost as much as Fox."
[[{That's good then....both sides should hate it.]]]

"In August 2001, then CNN chairman Walter Isaacson met with top Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to discuss how to improve relations between CNN and conservative Republicans."
[[[You mean after decades of bias they want to balance things out...what a "novel" idea.]]]

*lol*

Simple proof of a bias. If they refer to the "pro-choice" movement and the "anti-abortionists" it's biased. Either refer to both by their taken names "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" or by the issue name, "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion".

One of the easiest litmus tests for testing liberal bias in writing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 08:33:18 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 08:33:18 PM EDT.