The Economist manipulated the photo of Viktor Orbán

Remove all ads!

But Tal, what you don't understand is that Hungary has that special legal heritage, that is culturally and legally embedded in a way utterly incomprehensible to foreigners - and that includes you. It's just that in Hungary freedom of speech is different than in Slovenia. How dare you come along and narrow mindedly pass judgement?

The new media law is not coercing anybody into any special form of praise for dear leader. They are totally free to choose which, and how - in painting, sculpture, speech, poem, song, performance or dance - and on the internet, over the airwaves, in theatres on TV and in print. That is necessary for the nation to finally awake from its zombie state.

 

Ragusa do you think Merkel is cute in white?

Well, several people in this thread, as well as graphics experts (according to the HirTV report I linked) seem to agree it was manipulated. I also asked a friend and he said: hey, the brows in his forehead are totally unnatural, some of them seem to be 90 degrees to each other, that's pretty suspicious! In the meantime, I'm trying to find some genuine photos about the event.

The original photo was made by AFP. If The Economist chose it from a database, it had the free will to choose other photos as well. The fact The Economist decided to choose a manipulative photo AND a caption "Orbán's coming for you" makes its manipulative intention obvious. It's not known who exactly altered the photo.

 

Where was the rest of the democratic world in 2006 when police attacked innocent civilians? Where was at least some international outburst?!

About the isolation, we will see. At the moment, I don't have too big fears.

Maybe even they will learn from Orbán

 

The world focuses on what's truly important, like how Jessica Alba looks in her bikini.

And didn't Slovenia make some news a couple of times due to its practice of kidnapping American tourists and allowing people to murder them for a high enough price? See, I'm western, and better yet, American, and I've got some of my "global" current events straight.

 

...You have a Constitution to settle such matters, and while it may not be perfect it is a lot better than the alternative [tyranny].

 

It was relatively a big deal in the world, all the major news (CNN, BBC etc.) brought it several times. It is not an everyday event to see a military tank used in riots in Europe. What I tried to point out that while that time, they could present the events relatively factually (not calling Hungary "anti-democratic", home of "Putinism" etc.), they did it in case of a media law. Because that time, they DID NOT CARE about democracy in Hungary. Now that their money is affected, they start to "care about democracy" in Hungary. Hipocricy.

Economy, politics and military, yes, insignificant. Science and inventions, no. (So it depends in whose eyes. Those who know where John von Neumann (modern computer science), Leo Szilard (chain reaction!) etc. etc. etc. came from will not think Hungary had/had insignificant potential. Moreover, it really depends whose eyes we're talking about. In Budapest, an elite university mostly for American students has been opened recently, Aquincum Institute of Technology. Yeah this is a bit advertisement: U.S. readers, please tell your rich relatives about it )

Yes, but e.g. Ragusa and many others think their approach is superior even to the Hungarian Constitution. Because EVERYTHING what Orbán has done until now was all according to the Hungarian Constitution and laws. The 2/3 allows him to do very many things, yes, and this is completely correct: it has a reason the system set 2/3 to 2/3. I.e. that when so many people want fundamental changes, then they will be able to apply the changes, instead of boiling in the quiet but disgusting water of "nothing happens that could improve anything, because the opposition prevents every attempt".

 

It's standard for photos to be retouched. I'd just like to see how much was done. The photo looks unusual but the photographer might just have caught him looking funny that time.

A newspaper is obviously going to choose a photo that goes with the article that they're writing. I'd consider it a much bigger deal if they were making big alterations beyond just cleaning it up than if they just used a genuine photo which looked like they wanted.

Tal is right that this is making international headlines as an extraordinary incident. It's a very bad law, even if Orban does not abuse it himself it's wide open for abuse by whatever politicians will follow at any time in the future. In Ireland we've seen some previously fine institutions fail badly because the government appointed their friends to them rather than independent experts. In some cases it's not even clear that they were corrupt, they may just have been clueless.

 

Which is the Easter Egg?

Notice that the crazy brows are not present in any of the genuine photos.

I would like to remind everyone that the human eye (and emotions) can be cheated very easily. Did you guys know that one of the reasons your JPEG images are so small are because of the human eye (brain) is not sensitive to certain tones/colours? JPEG actually gets rid of many colours even in nice landscapes, but it knows WHICH colours to choose without significant changes for the human eye. Similarly, even some very minor but SUBTLE changes made by The Economist (or its source) are enough to make an "evil" look to Orbán. These changes are hardly noticeable (you can't just tell "hey, look, this dot/line is so odd"), but your brain still gets the impression the person makes an evil grimace. Let's not keep ourselves in fond delusion: the photo was edited.

In the genuine photos (and the last video), doesn't he rather look like an enthusiastic prime minister than a power-hungry dictator?











And a video, to show how he speaks in reality (if someone has accidently became a big fan of the Prime Minister of the "insignificant" Hungary due to my forum threads ):
http://www.hirtv.hu/?tPath=/view/videoview&videoview_id=11793

 

Ok, after looking into The Economist a little more, I have to say this:

What they did was despicable and terrible and looks entirely in character for them. This 'news magazine' appears to be about two steps above a partisan, politically focused tabloid. I'm no more surprised that they'd edit photos than I am that The National Enquirerer's stories aren't entirely accurate.

I continue to think that 'creative journalism' like this is terrible, but it seems to be on par with the terrible journalistic entity that did so. It's like throwing around feces. You'd be shocked to see a grown man doing it. Not so much a monkey.

 

I agree. It appears that the photo was edited. Not only does he look more sinister, but his nose is crooked.

None of those other pictures were dramatic enough for a message like "Orban's coming for you." So you can either draw a picture of him that fits your image (a very common approach)... or save some time and digitally alter a photo to make him look menacing. It's just another form of propaganda.

My pathetic attempt at humor failed, as usual, because it was far too obscure by the time I was done. I was playing on the fictional movie Hostel, where the events I mentioned occurred, yes, in Slovakia. I figured I'd throw in a double whammy and mix up Slovenia for Slovakia and a movie plot for a current event, to show just how on the ball we Americans are with keeping up with world news. Anyhow, moving on.

 

Yes, Slovakia. Because it's a horror movie, Marceror, not history! It's Hostel what you're talking about

 

I know, see my post above. It was intended to be a joke. The "couple of times" reference was a play on the fact that there have been 2 Hostel movies released. I know, a bit too obscure. It's a good thing I never pursued a career in comedy, right?

I think a little levity in these conversations is actually a good thing.

 

Ah, OK.

This is now really off-topic, but actually sometimes the reality can also be similarly terrible as Hostel, as the illegal cruel-sadomasochistic studio in Budapest proved it (link1 shows an English summary, link2 is Hungarian but IF YOU'RE SENSITIVE, DO NOT OPEN LINK2 because of photos of tortured girls; link1 and link2).

Yeah I know That's why geography education should be stricter! (Or would that be violating the freedom of children not to study? )

 

With regards to that video... no one can be that stupid, honestly. She thought Europe was a country, but France wasn't? And she's never even HEARD of Hungary??

She's got to be acting, right? Right?

 

For $25,000?

 

You did notice that the 5th grader actually knew the answer? Right?

More than likely, yes. It was probably heavily scripted. She wanted to be a star.

She's "dumb" all right. Like hell....

 

I don't now what you read, but I think your outrage is unwarranted. Never mind the picture (it isn't even clear it was edited) NOG, what they write is pretty much what you can read in all major European newspapres. I can say that for the German and Swiss majors, and even more so for the Austrian ones. They all report the same facts. None is too thrilled about Orbán and his policies either.

The economist is only insofar an exception in that it is clearly a neo-liberal (pro economic liberty all the way - in that sense libertarian - and liberal as far as values go (think freedom of speech)) newspaper which, as a result of the editorial line, must object to his economic policies (nationalisation of some sectors; the new media law). There is nothing despicable about that. It is just a pointedly different view than yours. I think that in their assessment of Orbán they are pretty much on target.

​

Thinking of this classic - Ed Meese presenting Reagan's anti-pornography law at the justice department to the press in front of the bare breasted Spirit of Justice - it is entirely possible that they caught a lucky shot or still. Photographers hunt for such shots.

... and, even though inane, necessarily an improvement. So this is when you try to be funny? If it wasn't for the smiley's I couldn't tell.