So Time used a photoshopped picture on a cover. Broke your little hearts.
Really?
Big flucking deal.
Where was your outrage when Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller posted interviews with women who claimed NJ's Bob Menendez paid them for sex five days before the 2012 New Jersey senate election? Especially even after all the women admitted they'd been paid off, bout $300 a pop by the Daily Caller to lie about the sex. (Who never apologized, Time did)
Yeah, but a photoshopped photo. That's Unethical? Don't get it...
Fox has misinformed forever: it convinced its audience Iraq was involved in the 9/11attacks and had wmds, commandeering opinion, and all based on a bald-faced lie Fox's audience bought into much more than cnn's or cbs's did. Fox was relentless.
....vs. a photoshopped picture of a child on a cover. Seriously? The Humanity!?
Fox has its audience denying global warming despite the fact that 97% of scientists say it's real? .... photoshopped kid...
Sure, liberal, conservative and main stream (whatever that is these days, liberal also?) exaggerate and sometimes misinform, but a freaking doctored photo that encapsulated a very specific, heartfelt sentiment compared to some other lies we're actually impacted by?
Nah. It's a picture. Time made a dumb call. Not cancelling my subscription.
A pic. Big flucking deal.
HuckFinn wrote:
