As for manipulated media, this piece comes from Fox News, so I immediately distrust it. But as far as I can tell, yes, CNN manipulated it.
2/ You can confirm this by going onto CNN's website and watching their video:
3/ You can plug in the picture into TinEye and see that nowhere else on the Internet does the CNN version appear.
4/ Which is the authentic version, CNN's version without the logo or one with the logo? Well, the version WITH the logo is what Biden has on his website.
5/ Now if this were political video, well, then I'd laugh at how politicians manipulate content and lie as they always do.

But CNN claims to be journalists, in which case such manipulation of images is gross violation of ethics of the highest order.
6/ My father was an Associated Press journalist. Here's how the AP deals with a case where a photographer editted out his own camera from a picture:
ap.org/ap-in-the-news…
7/ Here's another case from the Associated Press cutting ties with a photographer, and removing all his images from their library, for the crime of editing out his own shadow from an image.

popphoto.com/news/2011/07/a…
8/ BTW, the purpose of this thread isn't to repeat Trump's claim that CNN is "Fake News". Journalism is hard and mistakes happen. It how an organization deals with error that is important.
9/ In other words, if CNN takes this issue seriously, investigates it, and fires people if image manipulation is found, then CNN is clearly "Good News".

If CNN ignores this issue, or defends it as legitimate, then yes, they'll have proven themselves worthy of Trump's claim.
10/ This a great lesson in journalism. The AP takes a scorched earth approach to image manipulation even on truly harmless things like "removed a shadow" in order to avoid situations like this one where it's more debatable whether the edit was justified.
11/ In other words, Democrats will claim the edit was harmless while Republicans will claim the edit was meaningful. Both sides choose subjective partisanship over objective principle, so the AP sets the bar where only objective principle is involved.
12/ BTW, we don't know what happened. Was it CNN employee/contractor who change the image for this show? Or did they pull the image from a recent press kit provided by the Biden campaign, and thus a Biden person manipulated it.
13/13 Well, we have our answer: the theory of my last tweet is correct: they received the doctored photo from the Biden campaign:
washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur

Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ErrataRob

1 Sep
I'm disappointed in fact checkers do such a poor job debunking that "just 6% were actually caused by covid" thing.
factcheck.afp.com/trump-retweets…
What happened: a crazy conspiracy theorist saw a perfectly normal CDC report, misunderstood it, and then that misunderstanding went viral when the President retweeted it.
I think the first thing any "debunking" or "fact checking" needs to do is address why we are all talking about it? It also needs to address the agenda, not so much the "only 6%" number, but the implication the CDC was hiding it and suddenly revealed it August 30th.
Read 14 tweets
28 Aug
Okay, I'll bite.

1/ The Internet is secure enough. Sure, in some cases we can improve networks with more security, but in many cases, more security makes things worse, not better.
2/ Infosec professionals arguing for more security are a lot like those who argue for police states or military industrial complex. We try to argue from a position of moral authority, that security is a moral imperative rather than a marginal benefit that exceeds marginal costs.
3/ Burnout comes from failure at internal corporate politics -- such as failure to convince people that more security is necessary. It's not seen this way. Nobody describes "my corporate political battle" but "I'm right -- which they'd see if not for their corporate politics".
Read 30 tweets
16 Jul
1/n Okay, we need to stop for a moment and consider cybersecurity from a CEO's point of view. It's easy to laugh at them, as in the following tweet, but that's not going to change things until we understand their perspective.
2/ The only thing more broken than how CEOs view cybersecurity is how cybersecurity experts view cybersecurity. We have this flawed view that cybersecurity is a moral imperative, that it's an aim by itself. We are convince that people are wrong for not taking security seriously.
3/ Rather than experts dispensing unbiased advice, we've become advocates/activists, trying to convince people that they need to do more to secure things. This activism has destroyed our credibility in the boardroom, nobody thinks we are honest.
Read 19 tweets
5 Jun
Twitter is fiction. The latest outrage is driven by deliberate ignorance, by refusing to see it from the opposing point of view, by blocking everyone who doesn't share your outrage, by creating a filter bubble.
Trying to see things from the other point of view is just moral corruption, and maybe you secretly support this bad thing. Purity and virtuousness means ignorance, that we cleanse the net from any detail that would lessen the outrage.
By the way, the outages I'm talking about are the ones that upset everybody today but which disappear tomorrow to be replaced by the next outrage. I'm not talking about the George Floyd homicide.
Read 5 tweets
5 Jun
Bah. I'm nominally on the side of Zoom, supporting their decision to put end-to-end encryption only in their paid tier, but Matthew makes some compelling points here.
Nothing is "free". If somebody is offering a free product, they are expecting to get paid somehow. Saying Zoom's encryption needs to be free is like saying VPNs need to be free. Free VPNs are harvesting your data for $$$.
Zoom's free tier is therefore intended as the first step to get people to pay. From a pure business point of view, costs vs. benefits, what does end-to-end encryption lead to? If it results in more paying customers, then add it. If it only results in more costs, remove it.
Read 5 tweets
5 Jun
Start the countdown for how long it takes Trump to tweet a baseless attack against Kelly.
Trump has a long list of common attacks he uses in cases like this. It's hard to predict exactly which one he'll choose.

"worst chief of staff ever"
"he begged me for a job"
"I did him a favor"
"nobody liked him"
"also known as John Smelly (or some other bad name)"
The way competent politicians combat this is "Kelly was an extremely competent chief of staff, but we increasing disagreed on policy decisions, and I'm sorry it's come to this". People would believe Kelly less.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!