Fake news crying child used by Time magazine & CNN was never separated from her mother

[Camp]

Story is finished except for the whining trumpers. The photo, photoshop, whatever, is branded and will be a part of the trump legacy forever. People understand the symbolic message behind it an no amount of trumper whining will change the impact of the picture of a weeping child at the mercy of the horrible evil buffoon King Donald.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Another failed Goebbels-style propaganda fail. Those Losers can't get anything right.

 

[jknowgood]

Only low info folks think it's normal to see a Mexican child calling her mother, "mother"!!

HELLO!!

Falling for fake news is ghey

Oh, that is interesting. You should provide a link. Do you have a link?

Liberals have been proven time and time again to be nothing, but liars.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The photo is not fake. It is a real child crying as her mother is searched by a border guard. The child was not separated from her mother and that is why INFO Wars calls it fake news, but there is nothing fake about the child crying as she comes across the border with her mother.

I was in Walmart yesterday and this one lady had a buggy full of anchors, and two were screaming mommy you dropped our EBT card, I wonder if that meant Trump was separating them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a reason why conservatives suck at comedy -- thanks for reminding me

 

[jknowgood]

The photo is not fake. It is a real child crying as her mother is searched by a border guard. The child was not separated from her mother and that is why INFO Wars calls it fake news, but there is nothing fake about the child crying as she comes across the border with her mother.

Of course your retarded ass doesnt get it.
They used that girl to bash trump over separation of families. That girl didnt get seperated.

I don't really care. Do U?

I think it's funny, liberals always has to lie to push their agenda.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yup they are using the normal Democrat strategy of the ...


Ends justify the means


They could give a rat's ass about the facts/ truth just as long as they get it their way. Once it's out there most Americans will believe it


.

 

[abu afak]

`
It's really an Outrage that Day after day, the OP is allowed to POLLUTE legitimate sections with OPs from Infamous Conspiracy website 'Infowars.'

Only on USMB is conspiracy a good hunk of legit sections.
Could NOT happen elsewhere.

`

 

[Aba Incieni]

`
It's really an Outrage that Day after day, the OP is allowed to POLLUTE legitimate sections with OPs from Infamous Conspiracy website 'Infowars.'

Only on USMB is conspiracy a good hunk of legit sections.
Could NOT happen elsewhere.

`

It could happen with WAPO.

The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother

There are pages of references. Keep up.

time cover fake - Bing

 

[OldLady]

The image of a crying child at the border that has been used by Time Magazine and CNN to push open border propaganda has been proven completely misleading given that the Honduran girl was never separated from her mother.

Fake News: Crying Child Used by Time Magazine & CNN Was Never Separated From Her Mother
------------------------------------------

This is as good as the two losers who posted pictures of Melani wearing a rain coat with some bs saying on it and the stupid asses believed it omfg. Leftist Trump haters are so beyond pathetic there aren't even any word left to descripe how pathetic they are.

I'm glad to hear they didn't separate her from her mom. She's been through enough.

The Getty photographer who took that pic was interviewed fairly soon after the pic, and he explained that he didn't have a chance to talk to the mother, but he was thinking about the fact that neither the mother or the child knew what was going to happen once they reached the detention facilities-- that they would be separated (at least so he thought). That's what the new policy said.

Everyone who watches REAL news knew that. It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

it shouldn't have to "represent real news" - find a "real" picture of the story and post it. posting a photoshop cover designed to get you emotional on something is just that - designed to get you emotional.

what did she think would happen as she paddled her raft across the rio grande to get here illegally anyway?

The photographer explained that: It is not allowed by border security to enter those areas or take those pics. You know that.

She knew she would be arrested--she and the others paddled directly into the arms of the border patrol agents and requested asylum. She would not have known that her toddler was going to be taken to another facility.

I'm back to this thread because of an article I just read in another thread. From that, I'm wondering how in the world this mother and child were NOT separated. Trusting MindWars isn't something I usually do, but I didn't have any way to check it. This article from the National Review makes it seem pretty inevitable that they would have been separated. Maybe MindWars can explain how that happened?

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

no. i don't know that, oldlady. i've not made a life study of the situation down there so i have a lot to learn along the way.

but when i studied journalism - we didn't make pictures up to illustrate a point. we took a profound picture and let it say whatever needed to be said and all of it was based on the event being true and real.

if this is such a huge problem
and if families are being torn apart as a regular occurance down there
then how can it be so hard to find a picture that illustrates this truthfully?

it's like katie couric editing her anti-gun show to "illustrate" a problem that didn't exist naturally. it's a lie.

justifying it is part of our problems these days.

When the photographer TELLS everyone what the circumstances were, it is not a lie. I already told you, the photographers are not allowed in the detention facilities so they can't take pics of children as they are being actually taken away.

If the pic were taken and the media did not interview the photographer and make it clear that the pic was of a little girl crying when her mother was strip searched at the border, you would be right that it was fraudulent. That was NOT the case.

 

[OldLady]

The image of a crying child at the border that has been used by Time Magazine and CNN to push open border propaganda has been proven completely misleading given that the Honduran girl was never separated from her mother.

Fake News: Crying Child Used by Time Magazine & CNN Was Never Separated From Her Mother
------------------------------------------

This is as good as the two losers who posted pictures of Melani wearing a rain coat with some bs saying on it and the stupid asses believed it omfg. Leftist Trump haters are so beyond pathetic there aren't even any word left to descripe how pathetic they are.

I'm glad to hear they didn't separate her from her mom. She's been through enough.

The Getty photographer who took that pic was interviewed fairly soon after the pic, and he explained that he didn't have a chance to talk to the mother, but he was thinking about the fact that neither the mother or the child knew what was going to happen once they reached the detention facilities-- that they would be separated (at least so he thought). That's what the new policy said.

Everyone who watches REAL news knew that. It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

it shouldn't have to "represent real news" - find a "real" picture of the story and post it. posting a photoshop cover designed to get you emotional on something is just that - designed to get you emotional.

what did she think would happen as she paddled her raft across the rio grande to get here illegally anyway?

The photographer explained that: It is not allowed by border security to enter those areas or take those pics. You know that.

She knew she would be arrested--she and the others paddled directly into the arms of the border patrol agents and requested asylum. She would not have known that her toddler was going to be taken to another facility.

I'm back to this thread because of an article I just read in another thread. From that, I'm wondering how in the world this mother and child were NOT separated. Trusting MindWars isn't something I usually do, but I didn't have any way to check it. This article from the National Review makes it seem pretty inevitable that they would have been separated. Maybe MindWars can explain how that happened?

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

no. i don't know that, oldlady. i've not made a life study of the situation down there so i have a lot to learn along the way.

but when i studied journalism - we didn't make pictures up to illustrate a point. we took a profound picture and let it say whatever needed to be said and all of it was based on the event being true and real.

if this is such a huge problem
and if families are being torn apart as a regular occurance down there
then how can it be so hard to find a picture that illustrates this truthfully?

it's like katie couric editing her anti-gun show to "illustrate" a problem that didn't exist naturally. it's a lie.

justifying it is part of our problems these days.

When the photographer TELLS everyone what the circumstances were, it is not a lie. I already told you, the photographers are not allowed in the detention facilities so they can't take pics of children as they are being actually taken away.

If the pic were taken and the media did not interview the photographer and make it clear that the pic was of a little girl crying when her mother was strip searched at the border, you would be right that it was fraudulent. That was NOT the case.

I think the picture shows perfectly the anguish of children who just want their mothers in the middle of a frightening and confusing time. That is what it represents to me.

 

[MindWars]

Only low info folks think it's normal to see a Mexican child calling her mother, "mother"!!

HELLO!!

Falling for fake news is ghey

Oh, that is interesting. You should provide a link. Do you have a link?

Liberals have been proven time and time again to be nothing, but liars.

It makes you wonder how they can ever have the audacity to keep up the lies over and over again after being caught. These souless losers just don't quit.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

Ahh....but it doesn't.
And neither did the other fake photo of the small boy in a cage, or the other photo of a group of kids in a cage.
All were fake. All were used to exploit the subject matter to make you think it was something it was not.

Do you really want the media to do this?
To use faked photos both on purpose, or by accident via failure to vet a photo, to create emotion on a real story?
Really?
Saying it is wrong to exploit this 2 year old's image does not mean you cave in on your belief that separating the children in the manner they did was now okay.
It is two SEPARATE issues.
And dishonestly using images to support a narrative is wrong, even if the narrative itself is right.

 

[MindWars]

`
It's really an Outrage that Day after day, the OP is allowed to POLLUTE legitimate sections with OPs from Infamous Conspiracy website 'Infowars.'

Only on USMB is conspiracy a good hunk of legit sections.
Could NOT happen elsewhere.

`

You failed to connect the dots like a good little leftist loser.

and by the way the term " conspiracy was coined by the CIA". there's your first clue to why you are an excellent vitimc of pyschological warfare and they know idiots like you do well at falling for bs lies they push into your non thinking heads.

When you can't figure out the truth

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative | Zero Hedge | Zero Hedge

 

[iceberg]

The image of a crying child at the border that has been used by Time Magazine and CNN to push open border propaganda has been proven completely misleading given that the Honduran girl was never separated from her mother.

Fake News: Crying Child Used by Time Magazine & CNN Was Never Separated From Her Mother
------------------------------------------

This is as good as the two losers who posted pictures of Melani wearing a rain coat with some bs saying on it and the stupid asses believed it omfg. Leftist Trump haters are so beyond pathetic there aren't even any word left to descripe how pathetic they are.

I'm glad to hear they didn't separate her from her mom. She's been through enough.

The Getty photographer who took that pic was interviewed fairly soon after the pic, and he explained that he didn't have a chance to talk to the mother, but he was thinking about the fact that neither the mother or the child knew what was going to happen once they reached the detention facilities-- that they would be separated (at least so he thought). That's what the new policy said.

Everyone who watches REAL news knew that. It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

it shouldn't have to "represent real news" - find a "real" picture of the story and post it. posting a photoshop cover designed to get you emotional on something is just that - designed to get you emotional.

what did she think would happen as she paddled her raft across the rio grande to get here illegally anyway?

The photographer explained that: It is not allowed by border security to enter those areas or take those pics. You know that.

She knew she would be arrested--she and the others paddled directly into the arms of the border patrol agents and requested asylum. She would not have known that her toddler was going to be taken to another facility.

I'm back to this thread because of an article I just read in another thread. From that, I'm wondering how in the world this mother and child were NOT separated. Trusting MindWars isn't something I usually do, but I didn't have any way to check it. This article from the National Review makes it seem pretty inevitable that they would have been separated. Maybe MindWars can explain how that happened?

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

no. i don't know that, oldlady. i've not made a life study of the situation down there so i have a lot to learn along the way.

but when i studied journalism - we didn't make pictures up to illustrate a point. we took a profound picture and let it say whatever needed to be said and all of it was based on the event being true and real.

if this is such a huge problem
and if families are being torn apart as a regular occurance down there
then how can it be so hard to find a picture that illustrates this truthfully?

it's like katie couric editing her anti-gun show to "illustrate" a problem that didn't exist naturally. it's a lie.

justifying it is part of our problems these days.

When the photographer TELLS everyone what the circumstances were, it is not a lie. I already told you, the photographers are not allowed in the detention facilities so they can't take pics of children as they are being actually taken away.

If the pic were taken and the media did not interview the photographer and make it clear that the pic was of a little girl crying when her mother was strip searched at the border, you would be right that it was fraudulent. That was NOT the case.

i'm a photographer also. worked my way through college as a photojournalist.

this *is* the case. it goes against everything i was taught about journalism.

"strip searched"

for the love of god oldlady - read the stories.

"Ruiz, who was not available for an interview Friday, confirmed as much to CBS. He said agents asked the mother, Sandra Sanchez, to put down her daughter, nearly 2-year-old Yanela, so they could search her. Agents patted down the mother for less than two minutes, and she immediately picked up her daughter, who then stopped crying."

The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother

she's inches from her clothed mother in this picture so please - stop making shit up.

 

[Wyatt earp]

`
It's really an Outrage that Day after day, the OP is allowed to POLLUTE legitimate sections with OPs from Infamous Conspiracy website 'Infowars.'

Only on USMB is conspiracy a good hunk of legit sections.
Could NOT happen elsewhere.

`

Prove to us it's wrong , or is it just another "theory" of yours?

.

 

[iceberg]

I'm glad to hear they didn't separate her from her mom. She's been through enough.

The Getty photographer who took that pic was interviewed fairly soon after the pic, and he explained that he didn't have a chance to talk to the mother, but he was thinking about the fact that neither the mother or the child knew what was going to happen once they reached the detention facilities-- that they would be separated (at least so he thought). That's what the new policy said.

Everyone who watches REAL news knew that. It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

it shouldn't have to "represent real news" - find a "real" picture of the story and post it. posting a photoshop cover designed to get you emotional on something is just that - designed to get you emotional.

what did she think would happen as she paddled her raft across the rio grande to get here illegally anyway?

The photographer explained that: It is not allowed by border security to enter those areas or take those pics. You know that.

She knew she would be arrested--she and the others paddled directly into the arms of the border patrol agents and requested asylum. She would not have known that her toddler was going to be taken to another facility.

I'm back to this thread because of an article I just read in another thread. From that, I'm wondering how in the world this mother and child were NOT separated. Trusting MindWars isn't something I usually do, but I didn't have any way to check it. This article from the National Review makes it seem pretty inevitable that they would have been separated. Maybe MindWars can explain how that happened?

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

no. i don't know that, oldlady. i've not made a life study of the situation down there so i have a lot to learn along the way.

but when i studied journalism - we didn't make pictures up to illustrate a point. we took a profound picture and let it say whatever needed to be said and all of it was based on the event being true and real.

if this is such a huge problem
and if families are being torn apart as a regular occurance down there
then how can it be so hard to find a picture that illustrates this truthfully?

it's like katie couric editing her anti-gun show to "illustrate" a problem that didn't exist naturally. it's a lie.

justifying it is part of our problems these days.

When the photographer TELLS everyone what the circumstances were, it is not a lie. I already told you, the photographers are not allowed in the detention facilities so they can't take pics of children as they are being actually taken away.

If the pic were taken and the media did not interview the photographer and make it clear that the pic was of a little girl crying when her mother was strip searched at the border, you would be right that it was fraudulent. That was NOT the case.

I think the picture shows perfectly the anguish of children who just want their mothers in the middle of a frightening and confusing time. That is what it represents to me.

then a photographer should find a picture of it since it's so easy to do and all.

geezus christ - strip searched. for the love of god.

 

[iceberg]

It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

Ahh....but it doesn't.
And neither did the other fake photo of the small boy in a cage, or the other photo of a group of kids in a cage.
All were fake. All were used to exploit the subject matter to make you think it was something it was not.

Do you really want the media to do this?
To use faked photos both on purpose, or by accident via failure to vet a photo, to create emotion on a real story?
Really?
Saying it is wrong to exploit this 2 year old's image does not mean you cave in on your belief that separating the children in the manner they did was now okay.
It is two SEPARATE issues.
And dishonestly using images to support a narrative is wrong, even if the narrative itself is right.

but but but - it REPRESENTS how they feel.

you know - cause ACTUAL representations are so find.

 

[MindWars]

Yup they are using the normal Democrat strategy of the ...


Ends justify the means


They could give a rat's ass about the facts/ truth just as long as they get it their way. Once it's out there most Americans will believe it


.

They do and they can't connect the dots that run all the way into our Gov. who use people's trust in the Gov. take the weather bs climate bs ppl think the Gov. stats are and should be true information. They can't seem to get it that the FEDS control what information they want the public to know. It has to benefit thei rmotives of course.

And just like the climate issues the dot connections are the money trails " stocks, corporations they are all involved because they all make billions off pushing the bs. Example. : Solar panels if they push climate change get ppl to use those panels it generates money for the companies who make them, sell them, and the stocks having to do with them, bigg time FEDS invest in these stocks etc....... it's a game it is pushed informtion to fake the people out ALL THIS LEFTIST BS SCUM Bag bs is nothing but generated lies, lie after lie after lie........

Which brings me to the name " INFO WARS". do ppl get the fkn name now there is an information war stupid asses don't get that and it's happening right in front of their fkn faces.........

 

[abu afak]

Prove to us it's wrong , or is it just another "theory" of yours?

.

Prove to us this is a message board you Toad.

Prove to us you're not as Stupid as your one line idiot posts.

Now stop hogging the machine and give the other patients/inmates a chance.
`

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm glad to hear they didn't separate her from her mom. She's been through enough.

The Getty photographer who took that pic was interviewed fairly soon after the pic, and he explained that he didn't have a chance to talk to the mother, but he was thinking about the fact that neither the mother or the child knew what was going to happen once they reached the detention facilities-- that they would be separated (at least so he thought). That's what the new policy said.

Everyone who watches REAL news knew that. It still represents the policy perfectly, I think, and so does the TIME cover.

it shouldn't have to "represent real news" - find a "real" picture of the story and post it. posting a photoshop cover designed to get you emotional on something is just that - designed to get you emotional.

what did she think would happen as she paddled her raft across the rio grande to get here illegally anyway?

The photographer explained that: It is not allowed by border security to enter those areas or take those pics. You know that.

She knew she would be arrested--she and the others paddled directly into the arms of the border patrol agents and requested asylum. She would not have known that her toddler was going to be taken to another facility.

I'm back to this thread because of an article I just read in another thread. From that, I'm wondering how in the world this mother and child were NOT separated. Trusting MindWars isn't something I usually do, but I didn't have any way to check it. This article from the National Review makes it seem pretty inevitable that they would have been separated. Maybe MindWars can explain how that happened?

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

no. i don't know that, oldlady. i've not made a life study of the situation down there so i have a lot to learn along the way.

but when i studied journalism - we didn't make pictures up to illustrate a point. we took a profound picture and let it say whatever needed to be said and all of it was based on the event being true and real.

if this is such a huge problem
and if families are being torn apart as a regular occurance down there
then how can it be so hard to find a picture that illustrates this truthfully?

it's like katie couric editing her anti-gun show to "illustrate" a problem that didn't exist naturally. it's a lie.

justifying it is part of our problems these days.

When the photographer TELLS everyone what the circumstances were, it is not a lie. I already told you, the photographers are not allowed in the detention facilities so they can't take pics of children as they are being actually taken away.

If the pic were taken and the media did not interview the photographer and make it clear that the pic was of a little girl crying when her mother was strip searched at the border, you would be right that it was fraudulent. That was NOT the case.

I think the picture shows perfectly the anguish of children who just want their mothers in the middle of a frightening and confusing time. That is what it represents to me.

Yea you need pictures and coloring books, not words and facts


.