The Economist manipulated the photo of Viktor Orbán

Remove all ads!

Dumb sells, apparently. It worked for Jessica Simspon, who has become phenomenally wealthy, largely for acting like a ditz.

This Kellie Pickler capitalized on it too. I and don't think they even digitally enhanced her image (strained attempt to appear to be at least pointing in the direction of the topic).

 

Just because someone knows it doesn't mean education is good Practically everyone should know it.

But noone should get me wrong, I don't draw any conclusions about USA based on the video...

 

Some of you may remember this farce, drummed up by conservative media:


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8049121

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_checking_out_girl_not_re.html

And do I need to mention this one?





Manipulating images, however it is done, is an old, old story.

 

By the way Sarkozy, did you guys know that it's actually Sárközy, a Hungarian name? He is the son of a Hungarian aristocrat. (I say all this because, well, the topic is related to Hungary.)

 

... because, well, the topic is related to Hungary. Riight.

Thinking of it, goulash also is originally from Hungarian, and it is cooked in a wide variety of miserable on a daily basis in soup kitchens, households and staff canteens all over the world. Want to claim credit for that?

 

And that's probably for the best, actually. Both the original and the sequel are highly disturbing and highly graphic films, although strangely intriguing.

 

Are you nervous, Ragusa? Or maybe it disturbs you that whatever small nation Hungarians are nowadays, several people of Hungarian origin still had reasonable influence on the world (e.g. George Soros, Forbes #35, ruined the British Pound, but for a more positive example, Andy Grove -- Gróf András in Hungarian -- was the one who made Intel successful; or Charles Simonyi (Simonyi Károly) -- father of Word and Excel, fifth space tourist -- is the son of the professor who used to teach in my university; or Leo Szilard, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner -- also all of them Hungarian -- were working together with your Robert Oppenheimer in the Manhattan project........) Whatever small nation we're, we are almost everywhere; to annoy people such as you Ragusa

Considering the on-topicness of Hostel and Sárközy, at least the origin of Sárközy is more on-topic than the other stuff And yes, I also mentioned that about Sárközy because I guessed not everyone knows... just like not everyone knows Hungary exists in the world Anyway the EU Presidency is Hungarian now for half a year, so one more reason for promotion...

 

.. and thankfully it will rotate on afterwards. Worst thing to happen is that nothing happens.

You know what, I held Hungary in high esteem, without caring enough to read news about it, pretty much until I read you and about Orbán's press law and the rest of what he's doing. There you have my 'obsession' of all things Hungarian, it's about a week old. By so ineptly defending all that crap you raised my awareness that there is a problem in Hungary and that you are part of it. Mission accomplished? Ever considered that maybe you'd do your country a favour by shutting up? Nah, not going to happen. You're not smart enough for that.

 

The Economist has denied the manipulation of the photo claimed by the Hungarian media. You can compare them for yourself in the response. The editor-in-chief has responded to the allegations:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/01/picture_orbán

 

Chandos: as I pointed out, graphical manipulation of expert level is hardly noticeable (they manipulate the overall effect without leaving obvious traces regarding the position of local changes). The brows are definitely made stronger, just in a very subtle way. The Economist can bluff, and they do so, I think. (I.e. the left image was probably manipulated already.) They try to use their reputation against HirTV. Let's not forget that several people in this thread independently confirmed that they also find the photo very odd (especially when I showed other photos from the event). Nonetheless, the intention of manipulation (EVEN if the photo was genuine) is clear: the caption that they put there proves this. And that disproves their statement about their "fair" and "objective" reporting.

Noone should underestimate the graphical possibilities of The Economist. There is really a huge amount of money available there to pay the best and most seamless experts and methods.

Shutting up? That is suggesting 0pressing freed0m of speech oh no! Please respect my freedom of speech! (Joking apart, as everyone could see, I consider freedom of speech a very important fundamental right; but freedom of speech should not be abused to violate the rights of others, and the media should not abuse it to manipulate or mislead the audience.)

It hurts to hear the truth? That you can witness another example where your strict law-based raw view on the world is just NOT WORKING... that cultural and national interests also matter... that the nation authorizes the government, not your notions of international universal laws... Yeah, the truth can hurt. Hence your personal antipathy against me (reflected by the quote above), because I proved that you're not a too good lawyer (naively believing the reports from the press about the media law without even checking its TEXT beforehand), and I proved you are not even familiar with Hungary and just started to "collect" stuff randomly. You even admitted it here:

And then you suddenly, in a week, seemed to become a better expert of Hungary than me, magically getting familiar with the situation of state, minorities, laws etc. in Hungary. You even provided reliable "sources" for your "statements", in nice # numbering style.

let's talk personally next to a beer, ok?

 

Nonsense. The photo was provided by AFP. That is a different source. Any manipulation would be obvious if compared to the orginal provided to the Economist by AFP:

http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/taglibrary/know-how/photo

From the Editor's response:

 

OK... it's up to you to decide whether you allow yourself to be convinced by Economist's reputation or you listen to your initial intutions... just I want to remind everyone to use their senses when watching the photos (and common sense -- see my words about manipulation and the example of JPEG format)... senses are a better friend than The Economist for obvious reasons...

Because the editor is so much honest in every case... he follows instructions or represents tough interests, Chandos, even if it's more comfortable to believe that he doesn't. He does. It's all about interests, not about freedom of speech. One day several people in this thread (who didn't believe me) will understand it.

Another gem that was mostly "forgotten" by the various newspapers when listing "collections" of Hungary criticism:

(30.12.2010)

Source

 

I don't read the Economist, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know it's reputation in such matters. But AFP does know if the orginal was changed or not in the way you suggest. The Economist was provided an original photo by a different wire service [AFP]. Note the right hand bottom corner of the photo. The photo appears to have been altered in color and contrast, but compared to the original, they are quite the same, at least to my eyes.

 

You don't get it. I express a purely utilitarian point of view. Your defence of Orbán creates the opposite of what you intent; it doesn't work. You put people off, not win them over. How went that medical rule? First, do no harm ...

Chandos,
good find. I had a hunch that the vile misrepresentation by the Economist grossly and crassly distorting the exalted facial features of dear leader was a primarily product of Baronius superheated brain and fevered imagination.

 

The only person who absolutely and 100% believes in your viewpoint seems to be... just yourself Others have a more careful and complex view on the matter, in case you haven't noticed.

It's a typical psychological phenomenon: you try to prove to yourself and others that others all share strictly just your POV... the psychological reason for this: you see your efforts were not too successful to convince everyone about your global universal truth (in fact, you even admitted that you only started to deal with Hungary a week ago; and you also proved that -- as a lawyer! -- you first criticize laws and AFTER that you check their exact text only )

 

Not a global conspiracy: the SIZE and extent of the criticism is simply about money and interests. Those who don't realize this now will understand it later, for sure. The fact that the law might not be perfect and might need amendments later is fine; I've never denied it. The problem is that the international worrying about the Hungarian democracy is suspiciously too big compared to what it was when real antidemocratic events during the Socialist government.

No, it hasn't been disproved. Only for those who accept Economist's reaction. (On a side note, HirTV had a further reaction as well.) HirTV asked experts even initially, and I wasn't the only one in this thread who found the photo manipulated-suspicious. If you choose to believe what The Economist's reaction states, it will be your choice; it doesn't globally disapprove the accusations.

And the accusations are not unfounded. Experts examined the photo, and confirmed that it was manipulated. It's your personal problem that you don't accept the result of the Hungarian expert checks. You are free to do so. As you can see, a few others in this thread also found the photo very suspicious, regardless of any expert check or whatever.

The purpose of this thread is to share information to interested readers (in the name of freedom of speech), providing multiple points of view. About "mockery" or whatever, Ragusa also wasn't lacking of that; moreover, I offer evidence to my statements (which, in my personal opinion, is often much more credible than Ragusa's amateur attempts -- e.g. see the other thread: I just revealed that he even presented totally false information when he stated self-confidently that the Ice-T song was sanctioned according to the new media law). Don't bother telling that it's not evidence: maybe not for you. For others, it may be. Let it be the freedom of others to decide how to interpret my statements.

Let the (active and passive) readers decide what credibility they would like to give me.

On a side note, I never implied that Orbán would be perfect or that anything negative against him is untrue; I always say that for the time being, I'm satisfied with his approach; and that he seems to be capable of awaking the country from the zombie state where it stagnates.

 

You don't have to accept their reaction. All you need to accept is that the photo they say they got from AFT is actually the one they reproduced. And if you don't accept that, then the the burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't.

And for the record, even taking into account differences in colour and contrast, the two photos look essentially the same to me.