最近网上在传这个图，说CNN别有用心的截取左边一段，造成军队追赶民众的样子。
比如说这一篇文章 http://thisiswiki.com/2008/03/cnn-bbc-standingpoint/
那么我们回头看CNN的原文，图片旁附注的文字是这样的：
Tibetans throw stones at army vehicles as a car burns on a street in the capital of Lhasa.
为了防止这里有四级没有通过的同学，我大致翻译一下：在拉萨的市中心，轿车在路上燃烧，有藏民向军用车辆投掷石块。
谁他妈在造谣？
说CNN造谣的也有站得住的说法
图片比文字给的信息量要大 难说有人就那么觉得了 那注释他正好看不懂呢..
不看文字的话是会给人第一印象的错觉,CNN作为一个这么有影响力的媒体，不应该只裁这么半张图片.
大部分人看报纸是扫描式的。看标题，看配图，看各节小标题。很少有人仔细地去看配图下面附注的小文字的。CNN就是钻这么个空子。当然不能说他造谣，但是，为什么要这样做？
别辩解了，我头一次依照本文的链接去CNN上看，完全没有得出错误倾向的印象，就是那个张图，我也没有看出是市民受惊吓，并且该图并不是CNN自己剪裁，真正反应过激的还是你吧。
博主品到的意思是：A在向B投掷石头。
对不对。
至于投掷者是弱者反抗，还是残暴破坏。看图，博主应该能看出来。裁图和不裁图的区别了吧。
Man, you words actually is against yourself.
The link you showed is not the original article that used the modified picture. The link you showed is a article posted later which used the untwisted picture. You can not compare apple to orange. This can not prove anything but another misleading message.
If you want to support your words, you must show the original article with the modified picture, and show us that the description of that picture is not misleading(lying).
Show us the original article. Otherwise your words means nothing.
既然这位同学说我链接的不是原文，一定是有确凿证据才对。
要不你把原文的链接发出来看看？
I don;t know whether you found that at the top of article from your link:
“updated 2:44 p.m. EDT, Mon March 17, 2008”
However, the article was posted originally at March,15th. Can you smell something odd? It is not likely a article to be modified, especially two days later.
If you want to prove that the US medias are unbiased, here are some links can tell you something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2
shttp://att.newsmth.net/att.php?p.800.435422.288.ppt
I don;t know whether you found that at the top of article from your link:
“updated 2:44 p.m. EDT, Mon March 17, 2008”
However, the article was posted originally at March,15th. Can you smell something odd? It is not likely a article to be modified, especially two days later.
If you want to prove that the US medias are unbiased, here are some links can tell you something:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2
shttp://att.newsmth.net/att.php?p.800.435422.288.ppt
I don’t know whether you really want to see my reply, since now each time I want to post something, I got some security check and can not post anything.
I don’t know whether you found that at the top of article from your link:
“updated 2:44 p.m. EDT, Mon March 17, 2008”
However, the article was posted originally at March,15th. Can you smell something odd? It is not likely a article to be modified, especially two days later.
If you want to prove that the US medias are unbiased, here are some links can tell you something :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2
shttp://att.newsmth.net/att.php?p.800.435422.288.ppt
I don;t know whether you found that at the top of article from your link:
“updated 2:44 p.m. EDT, Mon March 17, 2008”
However, the article was posted originally at March,15th. Can you smell something odd? It is not likely a article to be modified, especially two days later.
If you want to prove that the US medias are unbiased, here are some links can tell you something.
http://www.guar dian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2
shttp://att.new smth.net/att.php?p.800.435422.288.ppt
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=9GEW2tXV4Vw
I don’t know whether you found that at the top of article from your link:
“updated 2:44 p.m. EDT, Mon March 17, 2008”
However, the article was posted originally at March,15th. Can you smell something odd? It is not likely a article to be modified, especially two days later.
I don’t know if you want to prove that the US medias are unbiased, but here are some links can tell you something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2
shttp://att.newsmth.net/att.php?p.800.435422.288.ppt
这位同学，你说我链接错了，于是我等你的原文链接，但是你拿出的链接全部是其他站点的。
修改文章不过是一个阴谋论的猜测，没有修改前的版本，我们无法认定它的变化和动机。
我的意思很明白：目前有一部分猜测完全基于主观恶意，我认为这样不好，所以反对一下。
至于你说到评论之后会有验证的问题，这是防止spam的措施，并不是对你才特别对待。如果你觉得我有意阻拦你的评论，那可真是无话可说了。
Maybe, you are right. You link is to the origianl link. I apologize for not realizing that the picture had been changed.
However, We all can see, it was modified. That;s why the updating timestamps shows a much later one.
CNN can erase any trace can lead to its bias report. Unless CNN keep the original archive, viewers would never be able to provide proof. Because the suspect this time,is also the police and the judge. Right?
If CNN is really neutral like you claimed, why it did not show the pictures of Han and other innocent people beaten, knock down, or even killed? Why did it always telling the story from Dalai group? Why didn’t it report any interview that telling the truth, especially from those western tourists?Can you explain these? If this is not biased or deliberately misleading(cheating if go straightforward), than what is biased? Then tell me , 究竟是谁别有用心? Me? CNN? or You?
如我所说的，由于证据不充足，所有怀疑都只是主观猜测。
http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=currentevent&MsgID=204287
Lalala:
Thank you so much. This link is enough to prove that CNN changed its reports later after they could not conceal the fact any more.
And FQX , Is this enough to prove that CNN is biased on this topic? While, you can still insist that this is a PSed web page. However, you can insist as yo want, but people can use their own intelligence to tell what is right or wrong.
究竟是谁别有用心?
不知道是我没有看懂还是你没有看懂，我怎么觉得Lalala给的链接并不是站在你那一边呢？
究竟是谁别有用心?
作者用这个句子就表明了态度：那些批评CNN的人是别有用心。
为什么CNN要剪图？
这不是小事，专业做新闻的一定会很注意的。
你给的一个链接我看了，那篇文中说原始照片被AFP切成了几张不同的图，但是BBC/CNN/FT都只用了这张图。如此看来，他们都很专业。
看了CNN页面，图片是不是已经改了？