Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Mrs Figg]

What I want to know is why they are focusing all this manufactured hysteria over Corbyn, anyone would think they are using this to attack him because that's the best they got, a couple of cautionary statements and the train seat 'scandal', when you think of the not so secret eroding of democracy by the Tories every day, like the NHS saying they will betray peoples privacy, how I that even legal? surely peoples medical records are protected by the law? anyway I digress, they must think we are thick.

[Eldorion]

The lies get worse- the BBC claim they did not photoshop it, it was just the way it was broadcast made the hat look darker- but they didn't alter it.
This rather fails to explain why then the hat has changed shape and been made taller and rounder to look less like a flat cap and more like a russian hat. Its clearly been altered! Lying bastards!

I have no idea what is going on in that GIF but if you layer the two halves of the first image you posted in GIMP and set the opacity of one layer to 50% you can see that the hat is exactly the same shape.



If the hat had been extended, there would have been a grey halo around it when combined with the original, as in this deliberately skewed version:



Obviously doesn't change the fact that they stuck him in front of a generic Russian-y background, added the red filter, and changed the contrast, but the hat is clearly the same shape even without checking in GIMP. It's only in the GIF that it appears altered.

EDIT: actually, looking closer at the GIF, note that the entire image has been stretched, as can be seen from the eyebrows, whereas there is no such change in the original comparison image.

[Eldorion]

Googling around to try to find out more, there's another version of the GIF going around where the alterations added to make the BBC look worse are especially obvious.



Note the lack of a red strip between the hat and the border. Whereas in other versions, including this and also the ones posted on the previous page:



Here's a different comparison GIF which is actually consistent with screenshots of the broadcast footage (via PetaPixel).

[Eldorion]

Anyway, I get why people are bothered by the BBC's decision here, but there's enough to criticize about the actual changes without making up new ones. And I'm not trying to blame anyone in particular for reposting images, though I am really disappointed in Owen Jones as a prominent public leftist for going to bat for a textbook example of fake news (or, in the most generous interpretation of his tweets/posts, excusing it away).

[Pettytyrant101]

Note the lack of a red strip between the hat and the border. - Eldo

{{In the opening shot as the camera pans into the studio, Corbyns head 'pans' across the Ruskie background- this is why in some shots there is the strip at the top and in others not and in some the tall building on his right is close to the head and in others further away (it started close at start of pan and ended further away by end of it)- plus its being grabbed off that moving image off a tv screen- I think that explains the strip at the top, the graphics in motion so is the camera, but it does look like its been stretched no doubt about that9 Although its possible the stretching is because its captured from a camera grabbing an image being projected onto a curved screen).
As you say though still doesn't excuse adjusting the contrast and colouring so the hat loses all its detail and its obvious 'flat capness' to look, in the setting very Russian. Not what an impartial state broadcaster should be doing however its cut. }}

[Eldorion]

The moving graphic would explain some of the variation I've seen even in seemingly-undoctored screenshots, then; I appreciate the extra information. But yeah the stretching is pretty obvious in the GIFs.

I agree that the Beeb's coverage of Corbyn (among other topics) leaves something to be desired. The color and contrast changes makes the image look like a Soviet propaganda poster. Whether that was intentional on the part of the graphic designer or not (and it probably was), someone should have nixed it.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{I asked the NotP editors why they chose, when reporting on your own term in office as Admin, to use images reminiscent of Mao propaganda posters, or if it was just a random coincidence- it wasn't- they wanted to make you look as bad as possible I'm afraid to fit their proprietors line and because it sells papers (also because they were drunk that day).

I dont see any way in which the BBC could claim it is not on the level of the NotP here!  }}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{I have to admit I was not particularly aware of bias in BBC reporting, at least not the extent they would go, until the independence referendum.
This is one of the more blatant examples of it as the report shown on the news and filed by the BBC political Editor of the time Nick Robinson is at compete odds with the answer given in the press conference. Just keep in mind as you listen to the words from the podium Robinsons report summing it up as 'he didn't answer'.}}

[Eldorion]

It was their coverage of Margaret Thatcher's death that first made me think twice about the BBC, but the Indyref was when disillusionment really set in, though to some extent that was simply the end of been a period of naivete about the wonders of public and/or non-American media. I do still read their website fairly regularly though and I like watching their election coverage.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I had heard of BBC bias in regards to Scotland before of course, in particular the generation or two above me were pretty bitter about the 70's devolution referendum and how the BBC reported it, and there was also issue I recall over the reporting of the poll tax riots in Scotland in the 80's- where they were largely dismissed as thugs and to the stereotype of the drunk violent Scot until the tax was introduced in England and the same happened there, when it suddenly became a legitimate grass roots protest. But was indie really opened my eyes.
Likewise though I still regularly visit the BBC news site, just with a lot more skepticism and I also make sure I get as many different news sources on a story as I can.}}

[halfwise]

Disinheartening. One intuitively feels the BBC is unbiased because their standard reporter's tone of voice never veers into the sensationalism or attack-dog style that indicates biased reporting in America. You feel like you're only hearing the facts, and interpretation is clearly labelled as such. If this is endemic it's a real loss.

[Mrs Figg]

what about Cambridge Analytica? its treason surely? a secretive sinister power which has influenced Trump, brexit and African elections. talk about the Thought Police. I bet they get away with it with a small fine and a slap on the wrist. although they have allegedly entrapped politicians with prostitutes, and worked for 'clients' probably the Leave campaign and the Trump campaign. the most vulnerable voters in fact have been most influenced. very worrying for democracy.

[halfwise]

Well, it was just doing what campaigns do; to me the real problem is Facebook making such information available. There's nothing wrong with analyzing data to figure out which voters to target and how. But such deeply personal data being up for sale is Facebook's business model, and it's twisted.

[Mrs Figg]

Its much worse than that Halfy, as it says in the Channel 4 expose its not just using data, they were involved with entrapment. Steve Bannon is involved Breittbart, and Ukrainian prostitutes. this is as shady as it gets.

[chris63]

[azriel]

So sad that this is the truth, When you multiply this by every beach on every country all around the world it makes me go cold & re think that being at the sea side isn't so nice after all. Thank gawd people are trying to do something about this but, humans shouldn't be like this. We can be so vile at times

[Mrs Figg]

Carlin puts things into perspective. "we're going away....." yup.

[Mrs Figg]

[halfwise]

As I said before I have no problem with data companies being hired to use data in campaigns; the problem is with where the data comes from. It seems CA knew it was getting data without the knowledge of users, and that this data was not stuff that would commonly be assumed to be out there. But I blame Facebook as much, perhaps more than CA - they actively collected this data without making it easy for their clients to know that was happening and put it up for sale - I struggle to decide if actually using the data once it's available is a greater or lesser offence.

[Mrs Figg]

can facebook use your location to send you messages and adverts? and can you stop them from using your IP to send you stuff? I had to delete all my Apps and Ads, and I didn't even know I had them. for example when I am in Italy I get Italian ads and when I am in the UK I get English ads, can I stop them from doing this, and is there no privacy on facebook? I  had a ton of apps I  didn't even know I had. its like they are spying on me.  I cant delete fb because I use it to log on to things.

[halfwise]

I think you can turn off location. There's whole articles on turning of FB access to your data - they don't make it easy to find every spigot.

[Mrs Figg]

getting sick and tired of the phoney anti-Semitic scandal they are trying to foist on Corbyn. its getting hysterical., the so called Left are the worst offenders. Huff Post Uk proports to be left leaning but I reckon its secretly a Breitbart mouthpiece, but maybe that's just me being paranoid. I don't trust any politician these days and I don't know who to trust in the media.

[chris63]

Everyone should watch this.

[halfwise]

Sounds like ufo speculation tied to the cell phone signal scare. Not buying it.

[Mrs Figg]

I don't have wifi, problem solved. talking of tin-foil hats, does tin-foil stop phone signals?