3 ms·
I don't think that's remotely new. They were always a bit out there, and now hyperpartisans have taken oven even places like ACLU. That said, I don't think thi
by version_five 3y ago
I don't think that's remotely new. They were always a bit out there, and now hyperpartisans have taken oven even places like ACLU.
That said, I don't think this changes anything. Someone was a bit lazy or arguably over-dramatic. I don't see it as some egregious violation of public trust. Even with real pictures, they would have been cherry picked for effect.
- jack_riminton 3y agoDisagree on your second point. There's a very clear distinction between reporting the facts on the ground and literally making photos up.
- version_five 3y agoAren't we talking about some graphics in a promotional campaign? I didn't interpret this as "reporting".
- alistairSH 3y agoThat's not what this report claims... posting images generated by artificial intelligence in order to promote their reports on social media If they wanted to use AI-images, they could have used any number of filters/effects to reduce the phot0-realism and make it clear the images were illustrations (vs "photos").
- XorNot 3y agoWell that would be relevant if they'd demonstrated any interest in actually reporting facts on the ground correctly.
- iudqnolq 3y agoI think hyperpartisans overstates the case with the ACLU. Partisans might be fairer. The ACLU has historically defended everybody, including literal Nazis. They decided to exercise judgement in deciding who to support because someone died who might not have if not for their action[1]. [1]: The chain of causation is that Charlottesville wants to unconstitutionally limit the Unite the Right protest, ACLU threatens litigation, protest goes ahead, protest supporter kills protest opponent. Obviously the ACLU isn't the main one responsible, but I don't think it was crazy for this to prompt reevaluation.