It's like deja vu all over again!
February 14, 2005 8:23 AM Subscribe
CNN's Nuke Plant Photos Identical for Both Iran and N. Korea! "Two stories posted in the last week on the CNN website, one on nukes in Iran last Wednesday, and another on nukes in North Korea on Saturday, both use the same aerial photograph of the same purported nuclear power plant!
But one is supposed to be in Iran and the other is supposed to be in North Korea!"
Looks like CNN removed the North Korea nuclear plant photo. Corrected their error?
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:33 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:33 AM on February 14, 2005
OMG PWN3D!!!11!!1 LOLCOPTER!!1
Do you have anything beyond the fact that CNN might have screwed up? Until you do, why don't you take off your tinfoil hat.
Wake me up when they mistakingly put up hot pictures of tog.
posted by dios at 8:33 AM on February 14, 2005
Do you have anything beyond the fact that CNN might have screwed up? Until you do, why don't you take off your tinfoil hat.
Wake me up when they mistakingly put up hot pictures of tog.
posted by dios at 8:33 AM on February 14, 2005
I think if there was a conspiracy, someone in the state department could have been bothered to start up Photoshop and move the landmarks around a bit.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:37 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:37 AM on February 14, 2005
Dangit. I was gonna be all snarky, but I was beaten to it. So I'm going to be honest: this is the kind of Democrat I don't like being associated with. He assumes that this is evidence of a White House conspiracy, and if a CNN intern gets canned because he uploaded the wrong file, it gets derided as "scapegoatery". Tin-foil is too sturdy for this guy.
posted by Plutor at 8:40 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Plutor at 8:40 AM on February 14, 2005
This is more MSM BS. Although, it wouldn't be surprising if NK helped design Iran's shit.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:40 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 8:40 AM on February 14, 2005
From the messageboard of the article....
Here are the two pic filenames:
Iran pic:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/kay.iran/story.suspected.site.iran.2.jpg
North Korea pic:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.nukes.ap/story.suspected.site.iran.jpg
HTML can be an evil mistress. From someone who has been on the internet before, I'm going with honest mistake.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2005
Here are the two pic filenames:
Iran pic:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/kay.iran/story.suspected.site.iran.2.jpg
North Korea pic:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.nukes.ap/story.suspected.site.iran.jpg
HTML can be an evil mistress. From someone who has been on the internet before, I'm going with honest mistake.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2005
it wouldn't be surprising if NK helped design Iran's shit.
It wouldn't be surprising if A.Q. Khan helped design Iran and North Korea's shit.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:43 AM on February 14, 2005
It wouldn't be surprising if A.Q. Khan helped design Iran and North Korea's shit.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:43 AM on February 14, 2005
If you all had any knowledge whatsoever of nuclear physics, you would see this is merely an instance of spooky action at a distance. Sheesh!
posted by mischief at 8:47 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by mischief at 8:47 AM on February 14, 2005
This is going to confuse Barrack Obama over which country to hit with a missile attacks. Maybe we should send that chickenhawk a toy novelty missile launcher in protest.
This is more MSM BS.
Someone slipped me some MSM at a party this weekend and I got super, super fucked up.
posted by dhoyt at 8:47 AM on February 14, 2005
This is more MSM BS.
Someone slipped me some MSM at a party this weekend and I got super, super fucked up.
posted by dhoyt at 8:47 AM on February 14, 2005
No doubt, probably a mistake. But given the administration's lies over the past two and half years, it's more than warranted to be as suspicious as possible as the war drums start to get beaten.
Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
posted by John of Michigan at 8:50 AM on February 14, 2005
Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
posted by John of Michigan at 8:50 AM on February 14, 2005
Wait a minute! Couldn't this be evidence that the "Axis of Evil" truly functions as a cooperative evil network? I mean, of course the two plants look alike ... why reinvent the wheel? Even the evildoers believe in cost efficiencies don't they? Now if we can just find that same plan somewhere in Iraq...
posted by R. Mutt at 8:50 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by R. Mutt at 8:50 AM on February 14, 2005
You laugh, and it is funny, but there's, nontheless an Axis of Evil...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:54 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 8:54 AM on February 14, 2005
It wouldn't be surprising if A.Q. Khan helped design Iran and North Korea's shit.
It wouldn't be surprising if Bush pardoned A. Q. Khan to help get oil pipelines laid down through Afghanistan to Pakistani shores. We're flexible about our definition of "Evil" in the "Axis of Evil", if it's profitable enough.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:03 AM on February 14, 2005
It wouldn't be surprising if Bush pardoned A. Q. Khan to help get oil pipelines laid down through Afghanistan to Pakistani shores. We're flexible about our definition of "Evil" in the "Axis of Evil", if it's profitable enough.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:03 AM on February 14, 2005
You laugh, and it is funny, but there's, nontheless an Axis of Evil...
really? it's not just a marketing catch-phrase some speech writer thought up to draw attention to the irrational fear we should be feeling and the umbrella of power under which we should all be huddling?
posted by blendor at 9:04 AM on February 14, 2005
really? it's not just a marketing catch-phrase some speech writer thought up to draw attention to the irrational fear we should be feeling and the umbrella of power under which we should all be huddling?
posted by blendor at 9:04 AM on February 14, 2005
Isn't it more of an axle now?
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:06 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:06 AM on February 14, 2005
No, there really is an Axis of Evil. Most of it is in the corporate accounts section, but there are some folks in the HR department that are in it as well. Luckily, the head manager of evil quit a few weeks ago.
posted by Bugbread at 9:07 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 9:07 AM on February 14, 2005
I think it's NK-Iran-Syria. These governments are off the rationality/diplomacy scale. There's really no way to deal with them other than hoping for an internal revolution (Iran), or military action (Syria, NK). I think we'll deal with Syria first.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:10 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:10 AM on February 14, 2005
AlexReynolds, According to Hersh, the Bushies don't want to make any more WMD mistakes, so they allowed Khan to be pardoned in exchange for getting as much information about Iran's nukes as possible.
“It’s a deal—a trade-off,” the former high-level intelligence official explained. “‘Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.’ It’s the neoconservatives’ version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation.”
Also, In 2003, the I.A.E.A. disclosed that Iran had been secretly receiving nuclear technology from Pakistan for more than a decade, and had withheld that information from inspectors.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:12 AM on February 14, 2005
“It’s a deal—a trade-off,” the former high-level intelligence official explained. “‘Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.’ It’s the neoconservatives’ version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation.”
Also, In 2003, the I.A.E.A. disclosed that Iran had been secretly receiving nuclear technology from Pakistan for more than a decade, and had withheld that information from inspectors.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:12 AM on February 14, 2005
I think we'll deal with Syria first.
Good luck with that. What could possib-lie go wrong?
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:13 AM on February 14, 2005
Good luck with that. What could possib-lie go wrong?
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:13 AM on February 14, 2005
I think we'll deal with Syria first.
I don't think they have as much oil as Iran.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:16 AM on February 14, 2005
I don't think they have as much oil as Iran.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:16 AM on February 14, 2005
Did someone say Axl?
We should invade, and install a Chinese Democracy.
ba-dum-dum<rim shot>
posted by QuestionableSwami at 9:36 AM on February 14, 2005
We should invade, and install a Chinese Democracy.
ba-dum-dum<rim shot>
posted by QuestionableSwami at 9:36 AM on February 14, 2005
I think, with the forces of cowardess defeated (Kerry), and clueless Dean at the helm of the DNC, it may be time to just igonore the Hate "W" crowd. Enjoy your exile.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:38 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:38 AM on February 14, 2005
It's spelled "cowardice," FYI. You might not want to reveal your lack of intelligence while attempting to demonstrate you know what you're talking about.
posted by Ryvar at 9:47 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 9:47 AM on February 14, 2005
Thank god we defeated that "cowardess" with the Purple Hearts and the saving of the lives with the not hiding in Texas and the nice laaaaady
My brain just exploded.
Axis: 10 a. An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.
So how exactly are these countries in alliance with each other again?
posted by designbot at 9:48 AM on February 14, 2005
My brain just exploded.
Axis: 10 a. An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.
So how exactly are these countries in alliance with each other again?
posted by designbot at 9:48 AM on February 14, 2005
AlexReynolds, According to Hersh, the Bushies don't want to make any more WMD mistakes, so they allowed Khan to be pardoned in exchange for getting as much information about Iran's nukes as possible.
I don't know. The damage was done, and the neocons could have easily said we're going to take Khan from Pakistan and interrogate him, regardless of Musharraf's opinion on the matter, one way or the other.
So why do we have to appease Pakistan? What does that give neocons? What I think is that letting Pakistan off the hook only gives us a convenient pretext for pre-emptive strikes on Iran. "We'll let them develop their nuke program enough to give ourselves an excuse to invade."
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:51 AM on February 14, 2005
I don't know. The damage was done, and the neocons could have easily said we're going to take Khan from Pakistan and interrogate him, regardless of Musharraf's opinion on the matter, one way or the other.
So why do we have to appease Pakistan? What does that give neocons? What I think is that letting Pakistan off the hook only gives us a convenient pretext for pre-emptive strikes on Iran. "We'll let them develop their nuke program enough to give ourselves an excuse to invade."
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:51 AM on February 14, 2005
I think, with the forces of cowardice defeated (Kerry), and clueless Dean at the helm of the DNC, it may be time to just igonore the Hate "W" crowd. Enjoy your exile. Enjoy a perspective on things condemned to the dustbin of history.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:53 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:53 AM on February 14, 2005
This could be an honest mistake on CNN's part.
Or it could be Army Psyops fanning the flames of war. Remember, they've done it before.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:54 AM on February 14, 2005
Or it could be Army Psyops fanning the flames of war. Remember, they've done it before.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:54 AM on February 14, 2005
It's spelled "cowardice," FYI. You might not want to reveal your lack of intelligence while attempting to demonstrate you know what you're talking about.
posted by Ryvar at 9:47 AM PST on February 14
Now, now Ryvar.
We here all know that PeePee is a distinguished lawyer in NYC and can do no wrong, just like his puppet master.
For example, I can remember PeePee telling us that after the election, which Dubya would win, that he would then join all the lefties, since he was one at heart, in keeping the Rethuglicans accountable.
And I, for one, have personally witnessed that dramatic transformation. Now PeePee and I both are liars!
The RNC must have increased their "trolls for the blogs" budget lately! I just hope they're not using my tax money again.
posted by nofundy at 9:58 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 9:47 AM PST on February 14
Now, now Ryvar.
We here all know that PeePee is a distinguished lawyer in NYC and can do no wrong, just like his puppet master.
For example, I can remember PeePee telling us that after the election, which Dubya would win, that he would then join all the lefties, since he was one at heart, in keeping the Rethuglicans accountable.
And I, for one, have personally witnessed that dramatic transformation. Now PeePee and I both are liars!
The RNC must have increased their "trolls for the blogs" budget lately! I just hope they're not using my tax money again.
posted by nofundy at 9:58 AM on February 14, 2005
Spelling aside, Paris, I completely agree. Religion, nationalism, and a populace held spellbound through propaganda have always been positive forces throughout history. When acting in concert their ability to manifest change for good is unparalleled. I firmly believe that those who oppose such forces within our own country should, nay, must be consigned to the "dustbin of history."
posted by Ryvar at 9:59 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 9:59 AM on February 14, 2005
Re. attacking Syria, Iran, etc....leaving aside the question of whether or not it's a good idea for a moment; how do you propose paying for all of that? By cutting taxes?
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2005
I think, with the forces of cowardess defeated (Kerry), and clueless Dean at the helm of the DNC, it may be time to just igonore the Hate "W" crowd. Enjoy your exile.
ParisP has earned some political capital, and now he intends to spend it.
As is so often the case, John Cleese said it best about the silliness of the "axis of evil" in an op-ed piece awhile back.
posted by gompa at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2005
ParisP has earned some political capital, and now he intends to spend it.
As is so often the case, John Cleese said it best about the silliness of the "axis of evil" in an op-ed piece awhile back.
posted by gompa at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2005
Aerial photographs over Iranian and North Korean airspace aren't being taken by CNN. The source of the story and the photographs HAS to be an official government source. I'd be interested in knowing who the source on these two stories was (department/office).
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
posted by spock at 10:05 AM on February 14, 2005
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
posted by spock at 10:05 AM on February 14, 2005
Aerial photographs over Iranian and North Korean airspace aren't being taken by CNN.
Again, it's not who took the pictures, it's who linked to them—which would be some web development lackey at CNN. (Re)read Arch's post above.
All in all, great FPP/thread, eh?
posted by dhoyt at 10:09 AM on February 14, 2005
Again, it's not who took the pictures, it's who linked to them—which would be some web development lackey at CNN. (Re)read Arch's post above.
All in all, great FPP/thread, eh?
posted by dhoyt at 10:09 AM on February 14, 2005
I'm willing to believe this is a mistake, but that's a huge fucking mistake. The result is the same.
How many people read CNN everyday? How many would have seen those photographs and thought, "They got nukes for sure, we gotta stop them".
posted by destro at 10:12 AM on February 14, 2005
How many people read CNN everyday? How many would have seen those photographs and thought, "They got nukes for sure, we gotta stop them".
posted by destro at 10:12 AM on February 14, 2005
Well, it is obvious and hackneyed, but I really can't resist...
Metafilter: Enjoy a perspective on things condemned to the dustbin of history.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:14 AM on February 14, 2005
Metafilter: Enjoy a perspective on things condemned to the dustbin of history.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:14 AM on February 14, 2005
AlexReynolds, According to Hersh, the Bushies don't want to make any more WMD mistakes, so they allowed Khan to be pardoned in exchange for getting as much information about Iran's nukes as possible.
look forward to bushies playing the human rights card instead.
(see this self-link for why it shouldn't work.)
posted by blendor at 10:15 AM on February 14, 2005
look forward to bushies playing the human rights card instead.
(see this self-link for why it shouldn't work.)
posted by blendor at 10:15 AM on February 14, 2005
Look yall, lets just bomb the shit out of all of them. Then it wouldn't really matter if it was CNN or CIA that fucked up. Hell, half the country can't tell Iran and N. Korea apart on the map, the one *with* labels.
posted by c13 at 10:24 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by c13 at 10:24 AM on February 14, 2005
look forward to bushies playing the human rights card instead.
The neocons will play whatever cards they need to, in order to get their war on.
With Iraq, it was a mixed bag of everything, meant to appease everyone:
• WMDs (for the deluded who thought there was a 9/11 connection)
• democracy (for the NASCAR dad/Reagan democrat demo that wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt)
• overthrowing an evil dictator rapist (for the soccer moms who wanted to give Bush the same benefit of the doubt)
• securing oil supplies (for the energy corporations)
• setting up a fixed, stable military presence outside of Saudi Arabia (for the hawks/Saudis)
• yellow ribbons (for an easy-to-swallow, holier-than-thou marker that helps cast the country's 49% dissent as traitors)
Look for more of the same targeted propaganda over the next few months, wrt Iran. Whatever it takes.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:32 AM on February 14, 2005
The neocons will play whatever cards they need to, in order to get their war on.
With Iraq, it was a mixed bag of everything, meant to appease everyone:
• WMDs (for the deluded who thought there was a 9/11 connection)
• democracy (for the NASCAR dad/Reagan democrat demo that wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt)
• overthrowing an evil dictator rapist (for the soccer moms who wanted to give Bush the same benefit of the doubt)
• securing oil supplies (for the energy corporations)
• setting up a fixed, stable military presence outside of Saudi Arabia (for the hawks/Saudis)
• yellow ribbons (for an easy-to-swallow, holier-than-thou marker that helps cast the country's 49% dissent as traitors)
Look for more of the same targeted propaganda over the next few months, wrt Iran. Whatever it takes.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:32 AM on February 14, 2005
That's a good one, Joey Michaels, but I prefer
Metafilter: You might not want to reveal your lack of intelligence while attempting to demonstrate you know what you're talking about.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:38 AM on February 14, 2005
Metafilter: You might not want to reveal your lack of intelligence while attempting to demonstrate you know what you're talking about.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:38 AM on February 14, 2005
this is the kind of Democrat I don't like being associated with
How do you figure bas67 is a Democrat?
Do you have anything beyond the fact that CNN might have screwed up? Until you do, why don't you take off your tinfoil hat.
The post doesn't mention a conspiracy at all. It simply points out how inaccurate the mainstream media can be when presenting important news. Which I appreciate.
I think, with the forces of cowardess defeated (Kerry), and clueless Dean at the helm of the DNC, it may be time to just igonore the Hate "W" crowd.
That'll be the day. Propaganda doesn't work unless you keep spewing it. I'm sure we'll be "lucky" enough to read PP's nonsense about the "Hate W crowd" day after day (after day after day ...)
posted by mrgrimm at 10:45 AM on February 14, 2005
How do you figure bas67 is a Democrat?
Do you have anything beyond the fact that CNN might have screwed up? Until you do, why don't you take off your tinfoil hat.
The post doesn't mention a conspiracy at all. It simply points out how inaccurate the mainstream media can be when presenting important news. Which I appreciate.
I think, with the forces of cowardess defeated (Kerry), and clueless Dean at the helm of the DNC, it may be time to just igonore the Hate "W" crowd.
That'll be the day. Propaganda doesn't work unless you keep spewing it. I'm sure we'll be "lucky" enough to read PP's nonsense about the "Hate W crowd" day after day (after day after day ...)
posted by mrgrimm at 10:45 AM on February 14, 2005
The neocons will play whatever cards they need to
Alex, you can go on spouting nonsense about 'teh ne0con' boogeymen in every thread whether it applies or not, or you can look at the facts about today's Democratic leaders:
Be sure to also check out the author's book on how 'progressives' helped reelect Bush:
Left Out! : How Liberals Did Bush's Work for Him
Concurring thoughts here.
posted by dhoyt at 10:57 AM on February 14, 2005
Alex, you can go on spouting nonsense about 'teh ne0con' boogeymen in every thread whether it applies or not, or you can look at the facts about today's Democratic leaders:
Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.
Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target.”
Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The Forward quotes Dean as saying, “The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism.”
Be sure to also check out the author's book on how 'progressives' helped reelect Bush:
Left Out! : How Liberals Did Bush's Work for Him
Concurring thoughts here.
posted by dhoyt at 10:57 AM on February 14, 2005
Alex, you can go on spouting nonsense about 'teh ne0con' boogeymen in every thread whether it applies or not, or you can look at the facts about today's Democratic leaders:
To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, really, since the FPP is about a duplicate photo, and speculation about its purpose.
All I'm saying is that its already been shown that the neocons will do whatever it takes to sell an unpopular war, so this "mistake" is not entirely a surprise. We're being slowly fed justifications for another war.
CNN/Democrats/"MSM"/etc. roll over to Bush on almost every issue, and so far that hasn't changed. Your quotes are just more evidence of it.
I wouldn't bother lumping the left-wing in with this establishment, as much as Rove would like you to.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:14 AM on February 14, 2005
To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, really, since the FPP is about a duplicate photo, and speculation about its purpose.
All I'm saying is that its already been shown that the neocons will do whatever it takes to sell an unpopular war, so this "mistake" is not entirely a surprise. We're being slowly fed justifications for another war.
CNN/Democrats/"MSM"/etc. roll over to Bush on almost every issue, and so far that hasn't changed. Your quotes are just more evidence of it.
I wouldn't bother lumping the left-wing in with this establishment, as much as Rove would like you to.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:14 AM on February 14, 2005
dhoyt, no offense, but it's not exactly surprising that the majority of the spineless democrats in power are supporting this. I think it's been fairly clear for years that those at the head of the party are centrists at best. And when you see a social progressive like Dean get nominated to the DNC, there's a lot of hand-wringing by these same wishy-washy political types like Kerry. There is no counterbalance; it's why your political climate is so god awful.
posted by The God Complex at 11:18 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by The God Complex at 11:18 AM on February 14, 2005
Outlawyr: That is, indeed, a good one.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:23 AM on February 14, 2005
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:23 AM on February 14, 2005
so this "mistake" is not entirely a surprise
I assume from your scarequotes you believe the photo mixup was planned and not an HTML error? So the GOP has operatives inside CNN's web department posing as HTML coders—I wonder if they take the black helicopter to work each morning.
Is anyone else getting a big "So What?" feeling from this entire story?
To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is,
The point is that no evidence suggests only neocons are anticipating war with Iran, and that no evidence suggests the CNN images were deliberately mixed up to help "sell a war". So I guess I'm left wondering what your point is.
dhoyt, no offense, but it's not exactly surprising that the majority of the spineless democrats in power are supporting this
Obama's has been a fashionable name to drop—IRL and on MeFi—for awhile, but I'm betting that it is a surprise for some MeFites to hear his decidedly outspoken & unfashionable position on hitting Iran with missiles.
posted by dhoyt at 11:47 AM on February 14, 2005
I assume from your scarequotes you believe the photo mixup was planned and not an HTML error? So the GOP has operatives inside CNN's web department posing as HTML coders—I wonder if they take the black helicopter to work each morning.
Is anyone else getting a big "So What?" feeling from this entire story?
To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is,
The point is that no evidence suggests only neocons are anticipating war with Iran, and that no evidence suggests the CNN images were deliberately mixed up to help "sell a war". So I guess I'm left wondering what your point is.
dhoyt, no offense, but it's not exactly surprising that the majority of the spineless democrats in power are supporting this
Obama's has been a fashionable name to drop—IRL and on MeFi—for awhile, but I'm betting that it is a surprise for some MeFites to hear his decidedly outspoken & unfashionable position on hitting Iran with missiles.
posted by dhoyt at 11:47 AM on February 14, 2005
There's something, at least in the short-term, satisfying about watching NK's neighbors squirm over NK. We can only hope the China figures out that it's coddling a lunatic regime and clamps down on NK. Maybe then, Kim will lob a nuke at China, and we can stand back, watch and enjoy (well, sort of enjoy...)
posted by ParisParamus at 12:02 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 12:02 PM on February 14, 2005
If it's a mistake it's a serious enough mistake all by itself.
We have a major media outlet offering false evidence of mortal danger to the American public during wartime. America is at war, correct?
Is this criminally irresponsible? Anyone know, there must be laws against promoting hysteria during wartime? For the sake of selling newspapers?
posted by scheptech at 12:37 PM on February 14, 2005
We have a major media outlet offering false evidence of mortal danger to the American public during wartime. America is at war, correct?
Is this criminally irresponsible? Anyone know, there must be laws against promoting hysteria during wartime? For the sake of selling newspapers?
posted by scheptech at 12:37 PM on February 14, 2005
" What the fuck could possibly be enjoyable about that?"
It's a kind of poetic justice: two tyranical regimes fighting each other? You know, it's not like people in China are not already being murdered at the behest of the government. And starved by the millions in NK.
Also, better them than us.
Also, I said "sort of."
posted by ParisParamus at 12:39 PM on February 14, 2005
It's a kind of poetic justice: two tyranical regimes fighting each other? You know, it's not like people in China are not already being murdered at the behest of the government. And starved by the millions in NK.
Also, better them than us.
Also, I said "sort of."
posted by ParisParamus at 12:39 PM on February 14, 2005
PP, the whole NK debacle is one more reason why picking a fight with Iran is a Bad Idea right now. All it takes is NK or Taipei to go sour and we'd be up shit creek without a paddle. Not to Godwin the thread, but America is in no position to fight a four-front war at this point, let alone the mismanaged three-front debacle it is embroiled in right now.
I assume from your scarequotes you believe the photo mixup was planned and not an HTML error? So the GOP has operatives inside CNN's web department posing as HTML coders—I wonder if they take the black helicopter to work each morning.
Dhoyt, who knows? Is it really that much of a stretch? I think a little paranoia, especially about a so-called "left-wing" media outlet like CNN, is healthy. It's not like CNN hasn't been fooled ("fooled"? who knows?) before.
Seems like I am finding myself more carefully reading the news outlets for nuances like these. What are we being sold?
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:40 PM on February 14, 2005
I assume from your scarequotes you believe the photo mixup was planned and not an HTML error? So the GOP has operatives inside CNN's web department posing as HTML coders—I wonder if they take the black helicopter to work each morning.
Dhoyt, who knows? Is it really that much of a stretch? I think a little paranoia, especially about a so-called "left-wing" media outlet like CNN, is healthy. It's not like CNN hasn't been fooled ("fooled"? who knows?) before.
Seems like I am finding myself more carefully reading the news outlets for nuances like these. What are we being sold?
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:40 PM on February 14, 2005
Huh? Does the visual representation of a nuclear facility materially bear on the story? No one is contending that neither Iran nor NK has nuclear infrastructure (although, this is Metafilter, so...). It was a mistake. It's not that big a deal.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:43 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 12:43 PM on February 14, 2005
Does the visual representation of a nuclear facility materially bear on the story?
So if I was a journalist, and I wrote a story about child molesters, would it be acceptable to paste a picture of the president on the page? If the visual representation of the molester had no bearing on the story's context, then I could put up whatever picture I pleased.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:49 PM on February 14, 2005
So if I was a journalist, and I wrote a story about child molesters, would it be acceptable to paste a picture of the president on the page? If the visual representation of the molester had no bearing on the story's context, then I could put up whatever picture I pleased.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:49 PM on February 14, 2005
and we can stand back, watch and enjoy
You know, it's not like people in China are not already being murdered at the behest of the government. And starved by the millions in NK.
Well, if the nukes somehow landed specifically and exclusively on these tyrannical leaders, that might be the case. But as it stands, I'm pretty sure nukes tend to land on the very people who have been oppressed. Hardly something to "enjoy".
posted by rooftop secrets at 12:49 PM on February 14, 2005
You know, it's not like people in China are not already being murdered at the behest of the government. And starved by the millions in NK.
Well, if the nukes somehow landed specifically and exclusively on these tyrannical leaders, that might be the case. But as it stands, I'm pretty sure nukes tend to land on the very people who have been oppressed. Hardly something to "enjoy".
posted by rooftop secrets at 12:49 PM on February 14, 2005
Anyone know, there must be laws against promoting hysteria during wartime?
I wish there were laws against promoting hysteria at MeFi--this thread and its alarmist contributors would be serving 5 to 10.
For the nth time, read Arch's comment about the HTML paths.
CNN's HTML team cast as secret war-selling GOP shills--someone should sell that TV movie idea to Fox.
It's not like CNN hasn't been fooled ("fooled"? who knows?) before.
Being fooled and fooling others are two totally different things, and there isn't a shred of evidence CNN is trying to fool anyone in this case--it's conspiratorial noise, not nuanced analysis. It sounds like your Cheerios are spelling out secret messages only "progressive" MeFites can see.
posted by dhoyt at 12:52 PM on February 14, 2005
I wish there were laws against promoting hysteria at MeFi--this thread and its alarmist contributors would be serving 5 to 10.
For the nth time, read Arch's comment about the HTML paths.
CNN's HTML team cast as secret war-selling GOP shills--someone should sell that TV movie idea to Fox.
It's not like CNN hasn't been fooled ("fooled"? who knows?) before.
Being fooled and fooling others are two totally different things, and there isn't a shred of evidence CNN is trying to fool anyone in this case--it's conspiratorial noise, not nuanced analysis. It sounds like your Cheerios are spelling out secret messages only "progressive" MeFites can see.
posted by dhoyt at 12:52 PM on February 14, 2005
It's not that big a deal.
I guess you would say it's no big deal that the Bush administration thought Iraq had nuclear capabilities when they really didn't know.
Yes it is a big deal. To say otherwise is complete delusion.
posted by destro at 12:57 PM on February 14, 2005
I guess you would say it's no big deal that the Bush administration thought Iraq had nuclear capabilities when they really didn't know.
Yes it is a big deal. To say otherwise is complete delusion.
posted by destro at 12:57 PM on February 14, 2005
It sounds like your Cheerios are spelling out secret messages only "progressive" MeFites can see.
Except that you didn't really take this same position in the Jordan thread, now, did you? Where was the evidence against Jordan, especially since he didn't "control" the footage to begin with, you nutty-conspiracy-nut, you?
Hypocrisy cuts deep, kiddo. Make sure you don't grab the knife by the blade before you throw it at someone.
At the very least, if you're going to try to present the illusion of nonpartisanship, be a little more consistent about your views.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:00 PM on February 14, 2005
Except that you didn't really take this same position in the Jordan thread, now, did you? Where was the evidence against Jordan, especially since he didn't "control" the footage to begin with, you nutty-conspiracy-nut, you?
Hypocrisy cuts deep, kiddo. Make sure you don't grab the knife by the blade before you throw it at someone.
At the very least, if you're going to try to present the illusion of nonpartisanship, be a little more consistent about your views.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:00 PM on February 14, 2005
Does the visual representation of a nuclear facility materially bear on the story?
IMO, yes it matters because to some folks a purported photo of something is the same as proof the actual thing exists. Note: they didn't fix their mistake by replacing the incorrect photo with the correct photo. Because they don't have one. That's a pretty big difference between two kinds of mistakes, one relatively minor the other huge.
Meanwhile, the North Koreans have a long history of lying to manipulate and gain leverage. I haven't checked in the last day or two, are the South Koreans still casting doubt on the things existence?
posted by scheptech at 1:04 PM on February 14, 2005
IMO, yes it matters because to some folks a purported photo of something is the same as proof the actual thing exists. Note: they didn't fix their mistake by replacing the incorrect photo with the correct photo. Because they don't have one. That's a pretty big difference between two kinds of mistakes, one relatively minor the other huge.
Meanwhile, the North Koreans have a long history of lying to manipulate and gain leverage. I haven't checked in the last day or two, are the South Koreans still casting doubt on the things existence?
posted by scheptech at 1:04 PM on February 14, 2005
IMO, yes it matters because to some folks a purported photo of something is the same as proof the actual thing exists. Note: they didn't fix their mistake by replacing the incorrect photo with the correct photo. Because they don't have one. That's a pretty big difference between two kinds of mistakes, one relatively minor the other huge.
That points to an editorial failure, not a programming one. That's somewhat more serious than a simple HTML mix-up. I'd be interested to hear dhoyt's reasoning on why this editorial error is insignificant.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:10 PM on February 14, 2005
That points to an editorial failure, not a programming one. That's somewhat more serious than a simple HTML mix-up. I'd be interested to hear dhoyt's reasoning on why this editorial error is insignificant.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:10 PM on February 14, 2005
Where was the evidence against Jordan,
In the various firsthand accounts referenced in the thread.
Which of course have nothing to do with this issue in which an image-path was erroneously displayed.
Jordan has a history of mouthing off without supporting evidence. But CNN does not have a history of switching photos to sell a war on behalf of the neoconz. Sorry.
posted by dhoyt at 1:10 PM on February 14, 2005
In the various firsthand accounts referenced in the thread.
Which of course have nothing to do with this issue in which an image-path was erroneously displayed.
Jordan has a history of mouthing off without supporting evidence. But CNN does not have a history of switching photos to sell a war on behalf of the neoconz. Sorry.
posted by dhoyt at 1:10 PM on February 14, 2005
" PP, the whole NK debacle is one more reason why picking a fight with Iran is a Bad Idea right now."
That may be true. But, I'm sure that, by the time military action istaken against NK, the Left with have constructed an argument opposing such.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:15 PM on February 14, 2005
That may be true. But, I'm sure that, by the time military action istaken against NK, the Left with have constructed an argument opposing such.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:15 PM on February 14, 2005
Which of course have nothing to do with this issue in which an image-path was erroneously displayed.
It does, however, point out that you'll happily judge one situation without solid evidence, but not this one, depending on the political context.
And indeed, I presented you with evidence that suggested that Jordan's statements were neither false or true, but uncertain. You did not respond to this evidence or acknowledge the complications surrounding the Dana story, not did you acknowledge that those factual complications may contribute to the basis for Jordan's position.
I'm sorry, but your inconsistency here is polemic, which is problematic in that you seem to present yourself as an impartial observer. Sorry, dhoyt.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:19 PM on February 14, 2005
It does, however, point out that you'll happily judge one situation without solid evidence, but not this one, depending on the political context.
And indeed, I presented you with evidence that suggested that Jordan's statements were neither false or true, but uncertain. You did not respond to this evidence or acknowledge the complications surrounding the Dana story, not did you acknowledge that those factual complications may contribute to the basis for Jordan's position.
I'm sorry, but your inconsistency here is polemic, which is problematic in that you seem to present yourself as an impartial observer. Sorry, dhoyt.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:19 PM on February 14, 2005
Note: they didn't fix their mistake by replacing the incorrect photo with the correct photo. Because they don't have one.
They definitely do have some picture up right now. Can't tell if it's just a zoomed in version of the old one or some new one though...(the third picture in the slide show)
posted by rooftop secrets at 1:20 PM on February 14, 2005
They definitely do have some picture up right now. Can't tell if it's just a zoomed in version of the old one or some new one though...(the third picture in the slide show)
posted by rooftop secrets at 1:20 PM on February 14, 2005
That may be true. But, I'm sure that, by the time military action istaken against NK, the Left with have constructed an argument opposing such.
Sorry, but this isn't a left or right partisan issue, PP. This is about America being unprepared to fight NK if it decided to launch nuclear weapons at South Korea or Japan, while fighting Iraqi and Afghan insurgents, as well as Iran. There are only so many children we can draft. It's simple logistics.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:22 PM on February 14, 2005
Sorry, but this isn't a left or right partisan issue, PP. This is about America being unprepared to fight NK if it decided to launch nuclear weapons at South Korea or Japan, while fighting Iraqi and Afghan insurgents, as well as Iran. There are only so many children we can draft. It's simple logistics.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:22 PM on February 14, 2005
I think "conspiracy yes / conspiracy no" is a wholly separate debate. I really have to admit that his "What the HELL has happened to the media in this country?" resonates with me.
What, indeed?
The problem is that a lot of people will look at this and say, "Oh hell, what's the big deal?" For me, it's akin to the time I returned a Military Book Club treatment of the US Civil War's Gettysburg battle because the book jacket promised a unique perspective on the 3-day "battle at Gettysberg". Didn't even open the book and it might well have been excellent and that might well have been the only error.
But if you're a publisher or a news agency who doesn't give enough of a damn to verify the accuracy of your core "facts", or even those that are ancillary to the main story, to me that renders everything you say suspect and worthless.
In this case they ran the identical picture and captioned it as two completely different facilities. Had they qualified it with some form of "Not exactly as shown", or "A satellite photo of an unspecified nuclear reactor from orbit", it wouldn't be a big deal. But CNN specifically i.d.'d one as the NK reactor, and one as a "suspected Iranian" reactor.
Sloppy, lazy and utterly unprofessional. CNN deserves all the slanging they're getting and their credibility has got a long way to go to come back. All I can say is thank God for the bloggers -- left and right. Keep callin' em on it, folks!
(Rant mode off.)
posted by Mike D at 1:26 PM on February 14, 2005
What, indeed?
The problem is that a lot of people will look at this and say, "Oh hell, what's the big deal?" For me, it's akin to the time I returned a Military Book Club treatment of the US Civil War's Gettysburg battle because the book jacket promised a unique perspective on the 3-day "battle at Gettysberg". Didn't even open the book and it might well have been excellent and that might well have been the only error.
But if you're a publisher or a news agency who doesn't give enough of a damn to verify the accuracy of your core "facts", or even those that are ancillary to the main story, to me that renders everything you say suspect and worthless.
In this case they ran the identical picture and captioned it as two completely different facilities. Had they qualified it with some form of "Not exactly as shown", or "A satellite photo of an unspecified nuclear reactor from orbit", it wouldn't be a big deal. But CNN specifically i.d.'d one as the NK reactor, and one as a "suspected Iranian" reactor.
Sloppy, lazy and utterly unprofessional. CNN deserves all the slanging they're getting and their credibility has got a long way to go to come back. All I can say is thank God for the bloggers -- left and right. Keep callin' em on it, folks!
(Rant mode off.)
posted by Mike D at 1:26 PM on February 14, 2005
Sloppy, lazy and utterly unprofessional.
Agreed. Same for Eason Jordan's behavior past & present.
Deliberate attempt to sell a war?
Give us a break.
I sent an email asking CNN about the shadowy GOP operatives who've infiltrated them. If I get a response, I'll post it.
posted by dhoyt at 1:40 PM on February 14, 2005
Agreed. Same for Eason Jordan's behavior past & present.
Deliberate attempt to sell a war?
Give us a break.
I sent an email asking CNN about the shadowy GOP operatives who've infiltrated them. If I get a response, I'll post it.
posted by dhoyt at 1:40 PM on February 14, 2005
rooftop secrets, the picture that is up on the North Korea page now is new. It wasn't in the slideshow when this thread started. The photo on the cnn page now appears to be the correct photo of the North Korea nuclear power plant. The article linked at the top of the thread notes the new picture as well.
My issue now is less with the error, but more with the irresponsible editorial oversight and lack of notation. When a newspaper screws up, they print corrections. When a legitimate news blogger makes a change, they'll note the changes. There should be no difference with www.cnn.com.
I don't think there is a conspiracy behind what CNN is doing, but it reeks of poor management.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:50 PM on February 14, 2005
My issue now is less with the error, but more with the irresponsible editorial oversight and lack of notation. When a newspaper screws up, they print corrections. When a legitimate news blogger makes a change, they'll note the changes. There should be no difference with www.cnn.com.
I don't think there is a conspiracy behind what CNN is doing, but it reeks of poor management.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:50 PM on February 14, 2005
Seems like SOP for news company websites, the editing of online content without posting separate corrections, that is. I don't really agree with the practice, but AP, Reuters, etc. have done the same thing in the past.
posted by furiousthought at 2:01 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by furiousthought at 2:01 PM on February 14, 2005
"Sorry, but this isn't a left or right partisan issue, PP."
Yeah, sure. The Left has, basically, become little more than a Hate Bush machine. Do you really think this wouldn't be blamed on Bush? You're dreamin.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on February 14, 2005
Yeah, sure. The Left has, basically, become little more than a Hate Bush machine. Do you really think this wouldn't be blamed on Bush? You're dreamin.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on February 14, 2005
ParisParamus, as the Iraq debacle has Bush's grubby little fingerprints all over it, why wouldn't anyone blame him for revving up the war machine to continue kicking Middle Eastern ass?
Because hindsight is 20/20, are you going to trust ANYTHING that comes out of the White House regarding ramping up for war?
posted by John of Michigan at 2:46 PM on February 14, 2005
Because hindsight is 20/20, are you going to trust ANYTHING that comes out of the White House regarding ramping up for war?
posted by John of Michigan at 2:46 PM on February 14, 2005
Obama's has been a fashionable name to drop—IRL and on MeFi—for awhile, but I'm betting that it is a surprise for some MeFites to hear his decidedly outspoken & unfashionable position on hitting Iran with missiles.
True, but he's fashionable because the Dems are falling all over themselves to find the next Clinton, that uber-politician whose charisma allows even the moderates to love him. Barack Obama's great speech was also heavily religious, so I don't see him as some saviour for the left, unless electing another Republican in Democrats clothing is what the Dems want--and it is. But he's not a saviour for the left, just for the Dems, and they're centrist. As I said, you have no counterbalance.
posted by The God Complex at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2005
True, but he's fashionable because the Dems are falling all over themselves to find the next Clinton, that uber-politician whose charisma allows even the moderates to love him. Barack Obama's great speech was also heavily religious, so I don't see him as some saviour for the left, unless electing another Republican in Democrats clothing is what the Dems want--and it is. But he's not a saviour for the left, just for the Dems, and they're centrist. As I said, you have no counterbalance.
posted by The God Complex at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2005
" That's a good one, Joey Michaels, but I prefer
Metafilter: You might not want to reveal your lack of intelligence while attempting to demonstrate you know what you're talking about."
Metafilter: taking my gaggle of fags to the straight parts of town...
posted by cookie-k at 3:38 PM on February 14, 2005
Metafilter: You might not want to reveal your lack of intelligence while attempting to demonstrate you know what you're talking about."
Metafilter: taking my gaggle of fags to the straight parts of town...
posted by cookie-k at 3:38 PM on February 14, 2005
Maybe then, Kim will lob a nuke at China, and we can stand back, watch and enjoy (well, sort of enjoy...)
...
It's a kind of poetic justice
...
Also, better them than us.
Also, I said "sort of."
that's easily the most disgusting thing i've read this week. if you're not ashamed of yourself, i hope you don't have children.
posted by blendor at 3:41 PM on February 14, 2005
...
It's a kind of poetic justice
...
Also, better them than us.
Also, I said "sort of."
that's easily the most disgusting thing i've read this week. if you're not ashamed of yourself, i hope you don't have children.
posted by blendor at 3:41 PM on February 14, 2005
The Left has, basically, become little more than a Hate Bush machine.
so? what's not to hate?
posted by quonsar at 3:42 PM on February 14, 2005
so? what's not to hate?
posted by quonsar at 3:42 PM on February 14, 2005
PP said: It's a kind of poetic justice: two tyranical regimes fighting each other?
Apart from being an incredible tragedy in terms of innocent deaths, which you seem to think amusing as long as it makes "liberals" look bad, you seem to forget that China's command economy is what makes Walmart the USA's prime retail business.
If they all die, where will you buy boxer shorts and garden chairs?
posted by zaelic at 3:54 PM on February 14, 2005
Apart from being an incredible tragedy in terms of innocent deaths, which you seem to think amusing as long as it makes "liberals" look bad, you seem to forget that China's command economy is what makes Walmart the USA's prime retail business.
If they all die, where will you buy boxer shorts and garden chairs?
posted by zaelic at 3:54 PM on February 14, 2005
It sounds like your Cheerios are spelling out secret messages only "progressive" MeFites can see.
Much like my spagetti-o's, mine keep telling me:
"OOOOOOOOOOO"
posted by Balisong at 4:11 PM on February 14, 2005
Much like my spagetti-o's, mine keep telling me:
"OOOOOOOOOOO"
posted by Balisong at 4:11 PM on February 14, 2005
Because hindsight is 20/20, are you going to trust ANYTHING that comes out of the White House regarding ramping up for war?
Yes, ParisParamus will eat it all up and ask for seconds...
(Am I hungry?)
posted by Balisong at 4:19 PM on February 14, 2005
Yes, ParisParamus will eat it all up and ask for seconds...
(Am I hungry?)
posted by Balisong at 4:19 PM on February 14, 2005
Er, just because noone has mentioned it so far: The whole thing is completely ridiculous, because there isn't even a reason to fake these photos to begin with. One is of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plant -- it's no secret that this plant exists and international inspectors have visited it many times. The other is of a suspected Iranian nuclear facility -- again, it's well known that the Iranians were up to some nuclear shenanigans and were in the process of building a test reactor or two, so it's really not such a big scoop to come up with something that looks like it might be a nuclear reactor and lable it "suspected nuclear facility."
posted by sour cream at 9:31 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by sour cream at 9:31 PM on February 14, 2005
Y'all are pretty funny. CNN doesn't have 'web dev lackeys' in the sense that someone's coding in the wrong link into an .html page. Likely they're using a large-scale CMS distribution system that also allows an editor/writer to quickly search their large database of images; editor puts in 'nuclear site korea' and gets the image tagged as Iran, because the individual who tagged the image originally likely tagged it with as much as he/she possibly could in terms of keywords. Editor can't find anything else useful and attaches the closest thing he/she can find, which is the Iran picture on the Korea story, or vice versa.
And I'm not shooting in the dark here, I code against Reuters' news feed on a regular basis, and have seen how image/story tagging can go bad; factor in an institutional-grade news distribution system (CNN.com), and you'd be amazed at how easily a mistake can be made.
posted by crabcakes at 11:35 PM on February 14, 2005
And I'm not shooting in the dark here, I code against Reuters' news feed on a regular basis, and have seen how image/story tagging can go bad; factor in an institutional-grade news distribution system (CNN.com), and you'd be amazed at how easily a mistake can be made.
posted by crabcakes at 11:35 PM on February 14, 2005
They currently have a correction up:
CORRECTION
An earlier version of this article included an image that was incorrectly identified as an aerial photograph of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plant. The photo was actually a commercial satellite photo of a nuclear facility near Natanz, Iran.
posted by dopeypanda at 1:08 AM on February 15, 2005
CORRECTION
An earlier version of this article included an image that was incorrectly identified as an aerial photograph of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plant. The photo was actually a commercial satellite photo of a nuclear facility near Natanz, Iran.
posted by dopeypanda at 1:08 AM on February 15, 2005
UPDATE: Same bullshit pulled by gov't-run "news" organization.
posted by aaronetc at 8:14 PM on February 15, 2005
posted by aaronetc at 8:14 PM on February 15, 2005
« Older What up, money? | Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Even with Bush's less than stellar track record, I don't believe they're trying to pull one over our eyes. The amount of intelligence people that view these photos must be enormous, as well as the politicals inside the administration, our allies, etc.
posted by geoff. at 8:32 AM on February 14, 2005