Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tinus_hn 1750 days ago
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1434581638923620360?...

These days you don’t even need to fake the photo, you can just attach the fake drama to a photo of something else and no one will bat an eyelid.

3 comments

Rolling Stone didn't even produce a proper retraction (calling it an update) for their fake news piece from that picture caption on horse dewormer and hospitals being allegedly overwhelmed.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1434854957614780424

All the mainstream reputable news organizations use stock photography extensively, so the public is generally willing to accept that the photograph attached to the headline needn't have anything to do with that headline.

Personally, I think this practice should be ended or at least decreased greatly. An article about a ship doesn't a stock photograph of a ship. It probably doesn't even need a photograph about the particular ship the article is discussing, unless there is something visually unusual or notable about that ship. The formula "Ship A is late to port, here is a stock photo of Ship B" is basically worthless. I guess they're tossing a bone to the borderline illiterate who are stuck at the "I can read picture books" level of literacy? But generally articles themselves are written at a higher 'reading level' than that.

Snopes often refers to these as "miscaptioned."
Unfortunately Snopes miscaptions many things themselves. Where the fact checkers of the "fact checkers".
Got some examples?
No need to fact check, just declare vague criticism for snopes every chance you get, pretend like it's self evident, then disappear because evidence is far left propaganda.
None that I could find. I didn't know snopes was in the business of captioning at all.