Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats The Military United States Idle

DNC Salute to Vets Featured Backdrop Of Russian Warships 218

Posted by timothy
from the one-world-government dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Our politicians, and their henchmen, at their finest! In an apparent error, the Democratic National Convention's primary backdrop for its salute to veterans, by a 4-star admiral, featured a composite warship backdrop, in parade review, as a sign of U.S. strength and force projection; unfortunately, all of the naval ships in the image were Russian warships."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNC Salute to Vets Featured Backdrop Of Russian Warships

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:33PM (#41470499)

    The rest of the media already picked this apart weeks ago, and has since processed the DNC's effusive apologies for somebody's error in Photoshop.

    Seriously?

    • by Culture20 (968837)
      I for one have never heard of this. I'm betting a lot of people haven't.
    • What media? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The real media ever touched this story. Wouldn't want to make any Democrat appear to ever have flaws.

      If there's no other reason to vote non-Democrat, it's simply so that the media will pay attention when mistakes are made. Just look at how the media refused to ask questions of Obama when they were still claiming the embassy hit was random instead of a terrorist attack.

      Voting for Obama is voting for four more years of media/government coverups. Only now with nothing to lose.

      • by readin (838620)

        If there's no other reason to vote non-Democrat, it's simply so that the media will pay attention when mistakes are made. Just look at how the media refused to ask questions of Obama when they were still claiming the embassy hit was random instead of a terrorist attack.

        You make a good point. Bush made a lot of mistakes too, but at least they made the news quickly.

      • The real media ever touched this story. Wouldn't want to make any Democrat appear to ever have flaws.

        Quite the opppsite [investors.com].

      • Re:What media? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @09:42PM (#41472577)

        voting with the R's will simply be worst.

        I'm not any cheerleader for the D's but I can certainly tell the diff between 'not getting enough done' (due to R's blockage, basically) and the true evil that the R's (these days) stand for.

        I refuse to have religion enter the stage of poltics any more than it has. R's are all about religion. I find this as distasteful as racism. I won't stand for it.

        the 'part of the rich' is not really what america needs right now. we can't afford more wealth transfer to the superpowerful. in fact, we need course reversal. the D's are closer to this than the R's are.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sumdumass (711423)

          Do you ever think about what you write?

          I'm serious here, I'm not trolling or trying to bait you or anything. But it appears that you are against someone being in government because of their religion and think that punishing the rich will somehow fix what you see wrong with the country. I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Senate is controlled by democrats and they have refused to even take up legislation that came from the house meaning your R obstructionism is little more then a campaign lie yo

          • by drkim (1559875)

            I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Senate is controlled by democrats and they have refused to even take up legislation that came from the house...

            At least the house Republicans hasn't been wasting their time voting down Obama's new healthcare law...

            ...except for the, you know, the 33 times they have. Knowing that it was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

            • by sumdumass (711423)

              Sigh,

              what different does it make? One is the same as the other. It's like starting an argument over who is the worst liar and somehow thinking it means the least is magically honest and worthy now.

              If that was all the house republicans have done in the last 4 years, you might have something of a point. However, we both know that isn't true so bring it up is just like saying that because the guy you do not like is a bigger ass hat, the other guy acting like an ass hat you do like is now magically not one too

            • Well what else are they going to do, given the Senate refuses to pass - or even address - a budget?
        • the D's are closer to this than the R's are.

          Kinda like comparing turds with corn instead of peanuts embedded in it.

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      The rest of the media already picked this apart weeks ago, and has since processed the DNC's effusive apologies for somebody's error in Photoshop.

      Seriously?

      Just another photoshop disaster, blame it on the (most likely fired) person who was surfing around looking for ship pictures and was too lazy or stupid to see what they snagged.

      Could be worse .. could take an engagement photo of two men, photoshop it and distribute it campaign literature to deny them their civil rights. Lawsuit is off and running.

  • Old news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dave Emami (237460) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:35PM (#41470507) Homepage
    I found this funny at the time, but it happened almost three weeks ago.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by OverlordQ (264228)

      I found this funny at the time, but it happened almost three weeks ago.

      But if the Republicans did it, the talking heads here on /. would be bringing it up for the next 6 months.

      • by fm6 (162816)

        None of us have our own TV shows, so none of are "talking heads". On the other hand, you can be sure that right-wing talking heads will be reminding of this one until the end of time.

      • But if the Republicans did it, the talking heads here on /. would be bringing it up for the next 6 months.

        In politics everybody beats dead horses.
        Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked. [nytimes.com]

        • by Q-Hack! (37846) *

          Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked. [nytimes.com]

          Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.

          Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

          • Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

            It is a "true lie" - it is a literal truth meant to mislead about a larger issue. People who say "true lies" fall into two camps - either they are deliberately intending to mislead, or they are so credulous that they believed the larger implication. Nobody cites a "true lie" because they really care about the true part as the true part is invariably of little interest just by itself.

            So yes, it was debunked. Especially when you consider the context of his delivery - stuff like, "I'll never convince them t

    • by fm6 (162816)

      It's never too late to say nasty things about those socialist fascist democrat partiers!

  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:36PM (#41470523)
    ... the Democratic National Convention ... um ... Wait, what?
    • by ackthpt (218170)

      ... the Democratic National Convention ... um ... Wait, what?

      In Soviet Russia warships back YOU!

  • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:37PM (#41470533)

    Democrats are commies

    (I kid)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:39PM (#41470557)

    Story is -1 offtopic

    • This really isn't unusual, idle usually is off topic. You can set your preferences to ignore idle if you want.

  • by Baby Duck (176251) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:44PM (#41470619) Homepage
    Slashdot. OLD ASS NEWS for Nerds.
    • This problem would have been avoided if a Slashdotter were in charge of the image selection.

      Frikkin' ignorant normies, I tell ya... :)

      • This problem would have been avoided if a Slashdotter were in charge of the image selection.

        Possibly, but who knows how the convention delegates would have reacted to slides showing Mobile Force Gundam?

  • At least it wasn't Pedobear at the Olympics.
  • Old news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rickb928 (945187) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:45PM (#41470637) Homepage Journal

    And it's merely a symptom anyways. Big woop.

    This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership. If they had, one of the old barnacles would have said 'let's put up a picture of BB 61, that'l scare the hell out of 'em!'. Unmistakeable US naval power, surpassed only by the CVNs. Hey, how about a picture of CVN 77?

    • This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership.

      You say that like it's definitely a bad thing...

    • Re:Old news (Score:5, Interesting)

      by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:09PM (#41470891)
      This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership.

      It's not just a case of no 'ex-military'. Some years ago, I had to correct a USAF Lt (computer dude, not a flyboy) who was preparing a Powerpoint slide deck. About 1/3 of the way through, there was an image of some fighter jets. Navy F-18 fighter jets.

      Dude...you need to change that picture.
      Why? It's jets. I'm trying to conjure up the concept of speed
      When your *Air Force* audience sees that picture of Navy jets, they will discount everything else you have said. Cluelessness does not work. Do your homework. It's not like we have a shortage of jets around here. Go 1/2 mile down the street, and you can see about 75 of our jets. Use some of those.

      Bottom line, just grabbing an dramatic pic does not work. Do your homework and grab a relevant dramatic pic. Hell...that is a line item in the "Action Officers Handbook", under 'How not to fuck up'.
      • by fm6 (162816)

        There's another side to your story. Ask yourself, why do we have all these separate military services that were designed for roles that were standard 200 years ago? Armies fought on land, Navies fought on water, and Marines fought on ships. All of these roles have blended into each other, and all the traditional services compete with the Air Force for a role in air power. So why not just get rid of all these different services, and have a unified service, like Israel? Save a ton of money on duplication.

        I'm

        • by khallow (566160)

          So why not just get rid of all these different services, and have a unified service, like Israel?

          Ok, let's see. Israel has an air force [wikipedia.org]. It has a navy. It has an army [wikipedia.org]. The thing here is that those divisions, which supposedly aren't in the Israeli military, are there.

          Basically, every military groups its forces by role, region, and mission/purpose, the US just as much as the rest. Relative weight of the groupings can vary as indicated in the post above, but I don't see a lot of significance in that.

          • by fm6 (162816)

            Wikipedia calls these the "Israeli Air Force", etc. (Wikipedians live to shove things into familiar categories, however poorly they apply). Israelis call the the whole thing the Israel Defense Forces. There are ground, air, and naval organizations within the IDF, but all report to the same general staff and draw on the same pool of personnel. There are no branch-specific uniforms or ranks.

    • I think this must have happened because those ships and planes look more like the ideal image one has of a battleship or fighter planes.

      Because modern warfare does not look like that: drones look like they are out of science-fiction movies. Ships don't have those big easily-recognisable guns -- launchers are way more effective, but just look like unexciting trapdoors. They could have gone with a big carrier: that really says US projection power.

      But in the end, who cares? it's a fake image designed to elicit

      • by fm6 (162816)

        Your use of the word "battleship" reveals your lack of military background. Only civilians call all warships battleships. To a military person a battleship is a big armored seagoing gun platform that lines up with other battleships (originally "line of battle ships") and dukes it out with enemy battleships. Obsolete ever since naval warfare became about airplanes and missiles rather than guns.

        Who cares? Probably the very vets they were trying to honor. Recognizing military hardware (especially the hardware

        • I used the word battleship advisedly. This is exactly what I meant, because this is exactly how people imagine naval warfare to happen. I well know that all-big-guns battles have not taken place in the last 60 years.

          • by fm6 (162816)

            Actually, big gun battles did take place in Korea and Vietnam. They were kind of one-sided...

            • I stand corrected.

            • But Viet Nam was very nearly 60 years ago...

              • by fm6 (162816)

                Hey, I'm not even 60, and I came close (though not very close), to fighting in that thing. Last U.S. troops left about 40 years ago. Most of the nastiest U.S. involvement, including including the deployment of the New Jersey [wikipedia.org] occurred about 5 years earlier.

                • The Saddest Day: 30 April 1975.
                  Then congress ensured we would not intervene in the Killing fields.
                    It is estimated that at least 1.7 million people perished at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
                  The UN did what it always does, held their balls and special meetings.
                  Eventually ejaculated some words saying it all might be a bad thing.

                  • by fm6 (162816)

                    Oh please. We killed a million Vietnamese trying to win the Vietnam war, so don't talk to me about the killing fields. And BTW, the Khmer Rouge came to power with U.S. help.

                    • So your point is that a million 'foreigners' killed is fine by you if it's fine by the UN...
                      Well, aren't you a sweet boy.
                      Is this some kind of equal justice thing?

    • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

      This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military with experience in identifying ships by silhouette working as graphic designers who pick the coolest looking stock photos of obsolete warships

      FTFY

    • Yes, because military leadership is demostrated in Photoshop compositions.

      Do you think the photo was chosen/doctored by a navy assessor? Most likely, it is the job of some assistant who thought "Well, the thing under looks like the sea, so the big things on it must be ships. And they are grey and have guns, so they probably are from the military (they lack *so much* imagination when it comes to colour!). And since we won the Cold War, only we have ships, don't we".

      If you want to worry about military leaders

  • by Bananatree3 (872975) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:51PM (#41470699)
    Simple. It's photogenic, and some art fart grad was tasked with finding the highest res, halfway-decent image the night before.

    Grand Conspiracy, my ass.
  • Why is this here? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:54PM (#41470725) Journal
    Why is this on /.?
    • Because the guy who made the presentation used Firefox on a Mac to Google the images.
    • Because... oh sweet Jesus.

      I suppose the elections are "stuff that matters" - but covering every candidate's (team's) many, many gaffes is practically a day task best left to other sites indeed.

  • by Sir_Kurt (92864) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:57PM (#41470753)

    Nuff said!

  • http://spitfiresite.com/2009/03/press-review-contd-spitfire-and-politics.html [spitfiresite.com] The British National Party used a photo of a spitfire as part of an anti-immigration campaign, only for it to be revealed that the spitfire in question was flown by a Polish pilot.
  • Typical PR folks (Score:5, Informative)

    by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:03PM (#41470815)

    PR folks usually have a pretty tenuous grasp on the subject matter. Hence, to appeal to those concerned about defence they probably just used Google Image to find "warships", look for some cool looking ones (with lots of sticky-out bits) and slapped 'em in their Powerpoint presentation. Note: US warships look less menacing these days, their radars are the slab sided SPY-1 for the Aegis and the missile launches are build into the deck as the rapid-fire Mk 41 Vertical Launch System and similar. So they look less mean, but they are actually more effective that way.

    If only this basic incompetence and lack of fact checking was limited to PR people. The bulk of journalists these days are also woeful in their fact checking. For example, in Syria they keep talking about "MiG fighters bombing the rebels" all the while showing videos of the L-39 Albatross trainer (nb: not a MiG). A small detail, but lets get the facts we know straight, yeah? What really worries me about modern reporters is that they get the facts I know about so wrong, so I figure that they are probably getting a lot of the other stuff wrong too.

    The City News Bureau of Chicago was famous for their high standards of making the journalists check their facts. They had classic watchwords, like, "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources.". It is a shame that proper journalism isn't practiced, is probably not that profitable, and doesn't really interest the general public (who'd rather follow a nude prince's private romp in Vegas, and the Duchess of Windor's poolside habits than any of the other things happening on the planet, both good and ill).

    However, these people are not alone in their bad habits. For example, both climate change advocates and climate change deniers seem to cling to dogma rather than continuously checking their assumptions against old and new data. It's always ok to be wrong, you just have to be prepared to change your mind in the face of better information.

    ps. I won't even start a rant on how badly informed most politicians appear to be. Clearly the skills required to enter office are not the same as those required to make informed and sensible decisions once you are there.

    • Not typical PR folks, poor quality PR folks. Good PR folks would have you believing that the two parties are somehow different. Don't be so down on the general public, they need leadership, this miasma of legal webbing sprouting everywhere produces only lawyer-leaders, who know best how to argue and stack the jury. Politicians are perfectly well informed, but only on those things that ensure they get re-elected.

      Power as an end unto itself is an end indeed.

    • Apologies for the bad etiquette in replying to my own post. Here's an interesting article covering some of the points of my discussion (I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the article):
      "Reporting Science: Journalistic Deficit Disorder" http://www.economist.com/node/21563275 [economist.com]
  • I'm shocked, I tell you shocked!

    Does anyone have an empty chair so I can sit down?
  • by bhlowe (1803290) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:15PM (#41470945)
    At least the nitwits got US made F-5 fighters in the backdrop... Unfortunately, they belonged to the Turkish Air Force... [dailycaller.com]
  • are belong to us

  • A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR... Ward's new microwave oven will allow you to cook a complete meal for four in under an hour. It will defrost, simmer, bake, and roast. It comes with its own removable browning element and even has a temperature probe. Help the cook in your home by giving her a new state of the art Ward's microwave oven when it comes out his Fall!

    NEWS JUST IN... Antediluvian Heights man Noah Finklestein fresh off a citation for public drunkenness and indecent exposure was seen this evening construct

  • So is this from the new influence of dice.com? Our tech stories will now be non-sequitor political bullshit? CNN and FOX can deliver crap like this, I expect much much more from slashdot.
  • I've seen time and time again stock footage being used in the press( typically TV ) where they didn't have real footage or images of the area of topic. So when I heard a few weeks ago about the DNC using the Russian warship footage, I just wrote it off as being done by someone hired from the typical media outlets.

    I am surprised someone with a military background didn't catch that unless it was first seen only during the event, ie not during any rehearsals or proofed.

    LoB

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Working...