Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

The vultures waiting behind the camera while the puppet masters & ventriloquists work behind the scenes.

The vultures waiting behind the camera while the puppet masters & ventriloquists work behind the scenes.

Greg Krasovsky

June 13, 2023

What's worse, taking a photograph of an injured person, even a child, or a dead body in a war zone or a disaster area

- primarily for the sake of photojournalism without providing available assistance (medical care, food, protection [from animal or human predators], shelter and/or evacuation)

   or

- for propaganda / information warfare / fake news? 

Sadly, I've seen a lot of "vulture" photo & video news coverage from Ukraine since the winter of 2013-2014 and the start of the civil war in Eastern Ukraine in the spring of 2014.
 
Some photos and video segments have been staged and faked.

What's worse, the vast majority of it has been by Ukrainian and Western news media.

This is based on my objective neutral observations and analysis.

So why did these Ukrainian and Western media journalists and news outlets violate the precepts of objective journalism, aside from being owned & controlled by establishment financial industrial groups that in turn control governments, political parties and politicians?
 
To arouse sympathy in The Americas, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand for the Pro-American Ukrainian government, even when its military, security & law enforcement agencies, paramilitaries and mercenaries commit human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.
 
And to arouse anger and hate against Pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens and Russia, as the country that provided them with military, economic, political and humanitarian assistance from 2014 to 2022 and then invaded Ukraine in February of 2022 to protect them and Russia's national security interests against NATO encroachment.
 
That's modern mainstream journalism today.

Show what's needed to arouse support for your sponsors' policies

Ignore, censor and shadow ban all inconvenient truths
 
What do you think?
 
***
 


Tobechukwu Ugwu

Facebook
June 11, 2023 at 11:53 AM

💥 THE SECOND VULTURE:

"I PUT IT TO YOU THAT THERE WERE TWO VULTURES ON THAT DAY, ONE HAD A CAMERA"

In the 1990's there was a widely circulated photo of a vulture waiting for a starving little girl to die and feast on her corp.

That photo was taken during the 1993/94 famine in Sudan, by Kevin Carter, a South African photojournalist, who later won the Pulitzer Prize for this 'amazing shot'.*

*However, as Kevin Carter was savouring his feat and being celebrated on major news channels and networks worldwide for such an 'exceptional photographic skill', he lived just for a few months to enjoy his supposed achievement and fame, as he later got depressed and took his own life!*

*Kevin Carter's depression started, when during one of such interviews (a phone-in programme), someone called in and asked him what happened to the little girl.

He simply replied, "I didn't wait to find out after this shot, as I had a flight to catch..."

Then the caller said, "I put it to you that there were two vultures on that day, one had a camera".*

*Thus, his constant thought of that statement, later led to depression and he ultimately committed suicide.

Kevin Carter could have still been alive today and even much more famous, if he had just picked that little girl up and taken her to the United Nations Feeding Center, where she was attempting to reach or at least take her to somewhere safe.*

*Today, regrettably this is what is happening all around the world.

The world celebrates stupidity and inhumane act, at the detriment of other.

Kevin Carter should have taken the girl away from that place, which will cost him nothing, yet he didn't.

Here is the inhuman posture, "he had all time to take his shot, but he had no time to save the girl's life".*

*Thus, we must all understand that, the purpose of life, is to also touch lives. So are you too a Vulture.

In whatever we do, let humanity come first, before what we stand to gain out of the situation.

In all we do let's always think of others and how we can be of benefit to humanity, how we can lend a helping hand and wipe away tears.

Hence, when we seek knowledge, wealth, fame, skills or even positions, let's think of how we can use it to benefit the people and society at large.*

*Today, there is a lot of poverty in the land, so if our God Almighty has blessed you, be a blessing to others, extend a helping hand to those in need.

Remember, you giving, is also a way of appreciating divine blessings, bounties, and favour of God Almighty upon you.

Therefore, it is very important that we all should help the poor and needy, the orphans and widows amongst us, so that they can meet their needs.

Please don't be a Kevin Carter, be human and think humanity.*

💥 Beware, we humans are not humans, if we lack humaneness in all we do‼️

https://www.facebook.com/SUNNEWS22/posts/pfbid0HLEkN13SJZFTY6yBSby29bqoBDuPVmnYQjdDaaZ57MQnTYPsL3zZoqcmU4NTVcQzl
 
***

History In Pictures

Facebook
September 8, 2020 at 12:03 AM
 
The vulture is waiting for the girl to die and to eat her.

The photograph was taken by South African photojournalist, Kevin Carter, while on assignment to Sudan.

He took his own life a couple of month later due to depression.

In March 1993 Kevin Carter made a trip to Sudan. Near the village of Ayod, Carter found a girl who had stopped to rest while struggling to a United Nations feeding centre, whereupon a vulture had landed nearby.

Careful not to disturb the bird, he waited for twenty minutes until the vulture was close enough, positioned himself for the best possible image and only then chased the vulture away.

At this point Carter was probably not yet aware that he had shot one of the most controversial photographs in the history of photojournalism.

   “The parents of the children were busy taking food from the plane, so they had left their children only briefly while they collected the food.

   This was the situation for the girl in the photo taken by Carter. A vulture landed behind the girl.

   To get the two in focus, Carter approached the scene very slowly so as not to scare the vulture away and took a photo from approximately 10 meters. He took a few more photos before chasing the bird away”.

The photograph was sold to The New York Times where it appeared for the first time on March 26, 1993.

Practically overnight hundreds of people contacted the newspaper to ask whether the child had survived, leading the newspaper to run a special editor’s note saying the girl had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, but that her ultimate fate was unknown.

Because of this, Carter was bombarded with questions about why he did not help the girl, and only used her to take a photograph.

As with many dramatic photographs, Carter came under criticism for this shot.

The St. Petersburg Times in Florida wrote: “The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering, might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene”.

The attitude that public opinion condemned was not only that of taking the picture instead of chasing the vulture immediately away, but also the fact that he did not help the girl afterwards –as Carter explained later- leaving her in such a weak condition to continue the march by her self towards the feeding center.

However, Carter was working in a time when photojournalists were told not to touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease.

Carter estimated that there were twenty people per hour dying at the food center. The child was not unique.

Regardless, Carter often expressed regret that he had not done anything to help the girl, even though there was not much that he could have done.

In 1994, Kevin Carter won the Pulitzer prize for the disturbing photograph of a Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture.

That same year, Kevin Carter committed suicide. (story credit: BoredPanda) See less

https://www.facebook.com/HistoryInPictures/photos/the-vulture-is-waiting-for-the-girl-to-die-and-to-eat-her-the-photograph-was-tak/2758576187738339/
 
***
 
The 1994 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Feature Photography
 
For a distinguished example of feature photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album, Three thousand dollars ($3,000).

Kevin Carter, a free-lance photographer

For a picture first published in The New York Times of a starving Sudanese girl who collapsed on her way to a feeding center while a vulture waited nearby.

https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/kevin-carter-free-lance-photographer

***
 
The Vulture and the Little Girl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Vulture and the Little Girl, also known as The Struggling Girl, is a photograph by Kevin Carter which first appeared in The New York Times on 26 March 1993.

It is a photograph of a frail famine-stricken boy, initially believed to be a girl,[1] who had collapsed in the foreground with a hooded vulture eyeing him from nearby.

The child was reported to be attempting to reach a United Nations feeding centre about a half mile away in Ayod, Sudan (now South Sudan), in March 1993, and to have survived the incident.

The picture won the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography award in 1994.

Carter took his own life four months after winning the prize.

This image has also been the subject of many criticisms for being a pornography of poverty.[2]

In Ayod

In 2011, the child's father revealed the child was actually a boy, Kong Nyong, and had been taken care of by the UN food aid station. Nyong had died in about 2007, of "fevers", according to his family.[1]
Publication and public reaction

In March 1993, The New York Times was seeking an image to illustrate a story by Donatella Lorch about the Sudan famine.

Nancy Buirski, the newspaper's picture editor on the foreign desk, called Marinovich, who told her about "an image of a vulture stalking a starving child who had collapsed in the sand."

Carter's photo was published in the 26 March 1993 edition.[16] The caption read:

"A little girl, weakened from hunger, collapsed recently along the trail to a feeding center in Ayod. Nearby, a vulture waited."[4]

This first publication in The New York Times "caused a sensation", Marinovich wrote, adding, "It was being used in posters for raising funds for aid organisations.

Papers and magazines around the world had published it, and the immediate public reaction was to send money to any humanitarian organisation that had an operation in Sudan."[17]

Claiming responsible ethical behaviour of photographers, publishers and the viewers of such photographs of shocking scenes, cultural writer Susan Sontag wrote in her essay Regarding the Pain of Others (2003):[18]

   "There is shame as well as shock in looking at the close-up of a real horror.
   Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order are those who could do something to alleviate it … or those who could learn from it.
   The rest of us are voyeurs, whether or not we mean to be."[19]

Special editorial

Due to the public reaction and questions about the child's condition, The New York Times published a special editorial in its 30 March 1993 edition, which said in part,

   "A picture last Friday with an article about the Sudan showed a little Sudanese girl who had collapsed from hunger on the trail to a feeding center in Ayod.
   A vulture lurked behind her.
   Many readers have asked about the fate of the girl.
   The photographer reports that she recovered enough to resume her trek after the vulture was chased away.
   It is not known whether she reached the center."[20]
 
Awards
 
    Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography (1994)[21][22]
    Picture of the Year by The American Magazine[23]

Aftermath

Four months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography, Carter died of suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning on 27 July 1994 at age 33.[24][25]

Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa, wrote of Carter,

   "And we know a little about the cost of being traumatized that drove some to suicide, that, yes, these people were human beings operating under the most demanding of conditions."[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulture_and_the_Little_Girl

***


Kevin Carter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Kevin Carter (13 September 1960 – 23 July 1994)[1] was a South African photojournalist and member of the Bang-Bang Club.

He was the recipient in 1994 of a Pulitzer Prize for his photograph depicting the 1993 famine in Sudan.

He died of carbon monoxide poisoning at the age of 33.

His story is depicted in the book The Bang-Bang Club,[2] written by Greg Marinovich and João Silva and published in 2000.
 
Pulitzer Prize photograph in Sudan

Carter shot an image of what appeared to be a little girl, fallen to the ground from hunger, while a vulture lurked on the ground nearby.

He told Silva he was shocked by the situation he had just photographed, and had chased the vulture away.

A few minutes later, Carter and Silva boarded a small UN plane and left Ayod for Kongor.[13]

Sold to The New York Times, the photograph first appeared on 26 March 1993, and syndicated worldwide.

Hundreds of people contacted the newspaper to ask the fate of the girl.

The paper said that according to Carter, "she recovered enough to resume her trek after the vulture was chased away" but that it was unknown whether she reached the UN food center.[14]

In April 1994, the photograph won the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography.[15][16]

In 2011, the child's father revealed the child was actually a boy, Kong Nyong, and had been taken care of by the UN food aid station.

Nyong had died four years prior, c. 2007, of "fevers", according to his family.[17]

Other work

In March 1994, Carter took a photograph of the three Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging members being shot during their abortive invasion of Bophuthatswana just before the South African election.

Carter ran out of film halfway through the incident.

Eamonn McCabe of The Guardian said: "It was a picture that made nearly every front page in the world, the one real photograph of the whole campaign."[18]

Death

Four months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography, Carter died of suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning on 27 July 1994 at age 33.[19][20]

Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa, wrote of Carter,

"And we know a little about the cost of being traumatized that drove some to suicide, that, yes, these people were human beings operating under the most demanding of conditions."[21]

   "I'm really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist.
    …depressed … without phone … money for rent … money for child support … money for debts … money!!!
    … I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain
    … of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners
    … I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky."

    — Kevin Carter, [Suicide letter]

The final line is a reference to his recently deceased colleague Ken Oosterbroek.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter#Death

***

Sunday, January 8, 2017

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived.



Selected excerpts from:

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived.

The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald, January 4, 2017

"IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

...

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

Indeed, in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues — including the Snowden reporting — nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work I’ve done questioning and challenging claims about Russian hacking and the threat posed by that country generally. This is being engineered not by random, fringe accounts, but by the most prominent Democratic pundits with the largest media followings.

I’ve been transformed, overnight, into an early adherent of alt-right ideology, an avid fan of Breitbart, an enthusiastic Trump supporter, and — needless to say  — a Kremlin operative. That’s literally the explicit script they’re now using, often with outright fabrications of what I say (see here for one particularly glaring example).

They, of course, know all of this is false. A primary focus of the last 10 years of my journalism has been a defense of the civil liberties of Muslims. I wrote an entire book on the racism and inequality inherent in the U.S. justice system. My legal career involved numerous representations of victims of racial discrimination. I was one of the first journalists to condemn the misleadingly “neutral” approach to reporting on Trump and to call for more explicit condemnations of his extremism and lies. I was one of the few to defend Jorge Ramos from widespread media attacks when he challenged Trump’s immigration extremism. Along with many others, I tried to warn Democrats that nominating a candidate as unpopular as Hillary Clinton risked a Trump victory. And as someone who is very publicly in a same-sex, inter-racial marriage — with someone just elected to public office as a socialist — I make for a very unlikely alt-right leader, to put that mildly.

The malice of this campaign is exceeded only by its blatant stupidity. Even having to dignify it with a defense is depressing, though once it becomes this widespread, one has little choice.

But this is the climate Democrats have successfully cultivated — where anyone dissenting or even expressing skepticism about their deeply self-serving Russia narrative is the target of coordinated and potent smears; where, as The Nation’s James Carden documented yesterday, skepticism is literally equated with treason. And the converse is equally true: Those who disseminate claims and stories that bolster this narrative — no matter how divorced from reason and evidence they are — receive an array of benefits and rewards.

That the story ends up being completely discredited matters little. The damage is done, and the benefits received. Fake News in the narrow sense of that term is certainly something worth worrying about. But whatever one wants to call this type of behavior from the Post, it is a much greater menace given how far the reach is of the institutions that engage in it."
 
Please read rest of the article at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/
 
***
 
The Ukrainian-Russian-American Observer:

http://ura-observer.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/

https://twitter.com/URA_Observer

Greg Krasovsky:

https://www.facebook.com/gkrasovsky