Site search

Blogroll

3000 Votes
Andrew Bartlett
Antony Loewenstein
Audrey of Adelaide
Australians All
Austrolabe
Balneus
Bitch Ph.D.
BoltWatch
Brian Flemming
Bush Telegraph
Catallaxy
Club Troppo
Counteract Now
Crazy Brave
David Jeffery
David Tiley
Deb Foskey
Denialism
Feminism 101
GrodsCorp
Human Rights Act
Irfan Yusuf
Jane Clark
Jeremy Sear
John Quiggin
Josh Wolf
Kalkadoon.org
Language Log
Larvatus Prodeo
LeftWrites
Legal Soap Box
Machine Gun Keyboard
Miss Politics Australia
New Int. Blogs
Nexus Six
Paradigm Oz
Peter Black
Peter Campbell
Peter Martin
Planet Irf
Polemica
Possums Pollytics
Reasons You Will Hate Me
Rodney Croome
Sauer-Thompson
South Sea Republic
Spinopsys
StinkyJournalism.org
Suki Has An Opinion
Talk it Out
Talk It Out
Tama Leaver
The Dogs Bollocks
The Indian Mutiny
The Partisan
The Poll Bludger
The Road to Surfdom
Thinkers Podium
Tim Dunlop
Tim Lambert
Tug Boat Potemkin
Typing is NOT Activism
Watermelon Rant
Webdiary
Woolly Days


Featured Content

Profile: Mick Towke
Profile: Greg Smith
Profile: Paul Gibson

Haneef vilified by Murdoch artists/editors

I outlined in an earlier post what I saw as vilifying pictures of Haneef published in the Murdoch press, and today I find the Murdoch press still publishing them, and I found a picture on the website, this time on the home page of The Australian.

I’m very interested in people’s votes as to the most accurate drawing, and which might be promoting bias against the man.  How do these compare in accuracy to typical "identikit" pictures drawn from (fallible) memory rather than from life as court pictures are?

Photo Murdoch Fairfax ABC
This is a neanderthal, a better fit to the Murdoch picture than the real man.
India Times photo This is a photo from the India Times: I wonder why we have not seen this in Oz media?  Too human?

I can’t help but wonder if the Murdoch artist drew a number of images, and the editors chose the most "evil looking" in order to vilify the man and promote subconcious acceptance of the Canberra Central Committee’s Kafkaesque actions.

The most obvious thing is the shape of the eyebrows: in the photo, the Fairfax and the ABC images, the eyebrows have a pronounced arch, whereas in the Murdoch image they are flat, and drawn to minimize the distance above the eyes, giving the "neanderthal" appearance I spoke of in the earlier article.

Next, the prominent (or at least relatively high) checkbones apparent in the non-Murdoch images were flattened, lowered and moved to the side in the Oz/Hun.

The whole proportions of the face (which from the photo seems to be relatively long) seem to have been squashed flat and broadened by the Murdoch press.

The legal arguments about the case and the actions of the executive apparently in contempt of the intentions of the judiciary are being dealt with elsewhere by those much more competent than I (start with Andrew Bartlett’s comments), but I do think that the actions of the Murdoch press need some attention to determine if there is any bias evident from their graphic misrepresentations, what the Murdoch motive is, and whether there is any method to sanction such behaviour as it may be prejudicial to court proceedings in a much more subtle and damaging way than the omission of the word "alleged" in reporting a situation in words.

How is the Murdoch press representation any less vilifying by twisting facial characteristics than the following depiction of semites?
NAZI propanda for 'The Eternal Jew'


Stories the server thinks are related:
>>You too can recklessly support terrorism!
>>Of Interest on 2007-07-26
>>I’m with Bob.
>>Where was justice for Iktimal Hage-Ali?


Comments

resta suma Comment from Duncan M
Time: July 18, 2007, 10:58 pm

I completely agree; I’ve been wondering how long it’d be before I saw someone point this out…

resta suma Comment from Kieran
Time: July 19, 2007, 6:04 pm

I concur, the Murdoch portrait is absolutely awful.

resta suma Comment from Jeffrey
Time: July 19, 2007, 11:54 pm

Man, that’s just shameless. And now Murdoch wants buy the Wall Street Journal. I fear for us all.

resta suma Pingback from Club Troppo » Missing Link, Friday 20 July
Time: July 20, 2007, 9:46 pm

[…] Keim is Australia’s answer to Major Mori. And David Bath examines the link between the pictures the MSM choose, and the stories they tell. 11. LE: I thought this was an inspired observation. [↩] RG sings […]

resta suma Comment from Dave Bath
Time: July 20, 2007, 10:35 pm

I’d be very interested if anyone with a legal background can comment here or back on Balneus as to whether the Murdoch press have crossed a legal boundary, and indeed if there is anything in law that covers this kind of thing.

resta suma Comment from philiptravers
Time: July 21, 2007, 7:12 pm

You should go to DavidIcke.com for some British view on Murdoch and Blair,where there is always …something in the air..with the Rupe.

Fucking TROLL!Comment from Anastasia
Time: July 22, 2007, 7:38 pm

The Murdoch machine serves people, like the Bush adminstration. Some of the article titles during the Iraq war, thought up by the Murdoch machine, including Murdoch drone Steve Dunleavy, are reprehensible.

Fucking TROLL!Comment from David Bath
Time: July 22, 2007, 9:31 pm

LegalEagle has given a lawyer’s perspective on this and related issues in "Portrayal of the Accused and the Law".

resta suma Comment from Kieran
Time: July 23, 2007, 11:52 am

Thanks for the link, it’s a very interesting area. I notice we dont have LegalEagle on the roll, I shall have to add her.

resta suma Pingback from Man or Beast?
Time: July 28, 2007, 7:43 pm

[…] Hat tip: Dead Roo […]

Write a comment





Close
E-mail It