Matt Loughery, the photographer who manipulated images of Khmer Rouge victims to make it appear they were smiling, did the same thing to old mug shots, was interviewed by the same journalist, and @VICE published that article two weeks ago. vice.com/en/article/pkd…
My question is, how did the journalist not know after doing two stories that the images were not just colourised but also manipulated and how did no one at @VICE look at the original photos.
The Khmer Rouge photos are repulsive. These feel more just strange. How is this person describing the people who were arrested as well-dressed when he is the one who has made them look that way, for instance?
It's as tho his mission is to make people who are suffering look like they are enjoying it. To make it all look not that bad. It's so strange and problematic. Why is anyone giving this a platform?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It appears the journalist who wrote the @vice story didn't even look at the original S21 photos to understand the photographer, Matt Loughrey, had not just colourised them but also changed them to make the victims appear to be smiling. vice.com/en/article/y3d…
Even more mind-blowing, when he is asked a question about the fact that some victims are smiling (again the interviewer has apparently not compared the original photographs) Loughrey says this:
My mentor and professor, Derrick Bell, (the founder of critical race theory jurisprudence) talked about this: in order to preserve White supremacy every now and then you have to allow people small victories so they don't challenge the underlying power structure.
He talked a lot about Brown v. Board of Education and the fact that 50 and then 60 years after the decision declaring legal segregation of public schools unconstitutional, they were more segregated than ever.
There's been a lot of discussion about why evidence of Derek Chauvin's past brutality, including the fact that he previously shot and killed a man, has not been admitted into evidence.
The more relevant question is, why wasn't he prosecuted for it?
Lest we forget, it was Amy Klobuchar who was head prosecutor of Hennepin County at the time and made the decision not to prosecute Chauvin.
Had she done that, George Floyd would be alive today.
Believe me, I understand the frustration that the jury will not hear about Chauvin's lengthy history of misconduct. But as a criminal defense attorney, I absolutely understand why.
Chauvin is on trial for George Floyd's murder - not anyone else's.
This is the @CNN article that @TomCottonAR tweeted with his statement that the US has an under-incarceration problem.
Problem is the entire article is based on statistics from a study by the MCCA, an organization made up of the heads of police departments.cnn.com/2021/04/03/us/…
MCCA is cited as the source of the report at the end of the article's second paragraph, but it's not made clear that it is a police organization.
And the rest of the article reports all the statistics as if they are objective fact.
Minnesota, like most states, has a drug-induced homicide statute. Originally intended as a tool to prosecute drug dealers, they are now used almost exclusively to prosecute family members, friends and acquaintances of people who die of drug overdoses.
However, the prosecution of Caleb Smith, a young White man, drew some attention. Mr. Smith facing 20 years in prison after giving his girlfriend fentanyl contained in an adderil pill, killed himself.