The Sunday Photos
Oleg Kozlovsky speaking to Echo of Moscow radio on the day he received his formal discharge papers after being illegal conscripted into the Russian Army to silence his political activism in the lead-up to the "presidential elections."
Kozlovsky celebrates his freedom
with his Oborona comrades on March 4th,
just after the "presidential elections":
with his Oborona comrades on March 4th,
just after the "presidential elections":
A political billboard in Moscow, just before elections
The fine print in the blue center section of this billboard standing on a Moscow street tells you that it was installed by the state-owned "Russia" television network. This appears below the Russian national crest with the double-headed eagle, making it appear that this is an official government pronouncement, which in fact it basically is. In the white top section, the date "March 2" is given -- the date on which "presidential elections" were to be held in Russia. The sign was standing long before that date, it was blogged in early February, it's not a message of congratulations. The red section reads: "The election of President Dimitry Medvedev." As a reader points out in the comments, it could be a Photoshop -- if so, it's excellent political satire.
Labels:
russia,
sunday photos
5 comments:
The last photo in the series is a Photoshop exercise by some Russian blogger. The original sign doesn't bear the name of the (now) President.
It's pretty telling (and ironic) that, while apparently calling for "accuracy," you don't document your claim.
Of course, it's quite possible that any image has been Photoshopped, but that's not how the source is reporting it, and you don't offer a single shred of evidence to support your claim.
What's more, it's beside the point, because everyone -- including you -- know that the sign shown in this post is deadly accurate even if it is a Photoshop.
Gee, you sure have read a lot into my comment. Tell me straight away, why did you put "accuracy" in quotes? I didn't write this word and hadn't accused you in anything related to "accuracy".
But your comment really got me going. You use the word "reported". You grabbed that image from a blog on all things Russian that doesn't really do any "reporting". This is called "reposting", and the blogger admits just as much in the comments. "Accuracy"? Yeah, the quotes are right.
I haven't found the exact poster on the internet, but here's a link to the information campaign variants: http://gtmarket.ru/news/polittech/2008/01/15/1572. Some of these were printed on billboards.
I like your blog and all, by why be on the defensive?
PS: Aha, just found the original - http://afp.google.com/media/ALeqM5hsyEgu35RQhmvemXvDIIHtQS8Zjg?size=m. It's a France-Presse photo.
Thanks for the links!
The problem stems from your careless use of language. You chose to say "is a Photoshop" when you could have simply said "could be." If you chose to state a fact, you should back up your claim.
You are careless once again when you use the word "reporting." All kinds of vital information have been reported from some of the most unlikely sources imaginable, including yes, even blogs! You almost sound like you'd like to be the one who gets to sit in judgment. Are you a bit frustrated that the world hasn't yet beaten a path to your door in this regard?
Are you suggesting that France-Presse can't have Photoshoppped images? If so you're quite mistaken, such issues have been well documented in the blogosphere. You've offered more than enough evidence to support your opinion, as you should have done in the first place as a responsible reader and commenter, but you've proven nothing.
Thanks for acknowledging my correction, but I'm not saying it "might be" - it is PhotoShop. I'm Russian and live in Moscow.
Yeah, I really can't present any more evidence, because the elections are gone and I had no wish to shoot the posters for them to be PhotoShopped or otherwise. And anyway if I'd done that you wouldn't believe me, 'cause I might PhotoShop my photos as well. Basically you can't even take my word for it as a witness to the electorial process, 'cause people lie all the time. :)
I still think that there's a difference between satire and reporting. And speaking of satire, there's a lot of it in Russia concerning the elections.
Post a Comment