The Economist manipulated the photo of Viktor Orbán

Remove all ads!

Naturally. When you oppose dear leader that means that you must be one of them, and that you do it because of a pathological character flaw on your part. There cannot be any other explanation. Clearly, you are a villain. And of course it is them pulling the strings in all the bad press dear leader gets.

 

That is the "original" presented by The Economist. As I told, the advanced methods can apply changes that you don't notice easily with a human eye (so it's easy to lie e.g. by The Economist: this looks the same as the true original!). Certain changes can only be shown by expert methods (think of manipulated videos).

To sum up: The Economist manipulated the AFP photo in a way that can be defended later ("this is the AFP original") because the graphical changes are too subtle (remember my JPEG example)*. I.e. they prepared for lying. And many of you here, simply and naively eat it, allowing yourself to be misled. Keep living in lies!

*Just here certain people are too stupid or pretend to be stupid to understand what an advanced image manipulation method means (sorry for the word 'stupid', I tried to avoid it until now, but there is no better alternative for it anymore!). (Instead they choose to say that "Baronius thinks he is right because he says so" and similar nonsense.) Like in kindergarten.

I already gave the reason why I edited it out that time. And no, I couldn't find it in "no time" (the photos were taken from more sources I quickly googled that time), nor I had the intention. Yes, postings were slightly overlapped, and I don't deny I tend to notice issues with my post even after sending it (regardless of the fact I obviously read the whole post again before sending it). A possible solution can be that you wait a few minutes (compared to the exact date of my new post) after seeing my post, or if not, then you quickly re-check it later and see if your immediate reply is still consistent. Yes, it's my bad in these cases, but as far as I noticed, others also tend to edit and add new things to their brand-new posts, so my case is not an isolated one. All in all, I didn't remove that photo because you mentioned it: I didn't even see your new post that time (didn't refresh the page when started editing). So it's funny you dare to imply such a thing, questioning my credibility here. Don't think that the fact you're the Sorcerer's Place owner gives your posts a distinguished credibility or prestige in everyone's eyes. In the eyes of many (especially the local regulars), yes, but not in everyone's eyes. (I just say this so you don't keep yourself in the illusion that if you question my credibility multiple times, it will have a big impact, and that your credibility is above any suspicion. Of course, you're free to keep believing whatever you wish about it.)

I found it important to draw the attention to the matter. It has happened. And don't bother (and this applies not just to you) answering cynical comments about this. I was glad and still glad that I draws the attention to the issue.

There are probably subtle changes. On the left photo, the intensity of the dominant brows is normal, while on the right, it looks unnatural (which confirms the non-linear transformation, on a side note). But yes, this observation is SUBJECTIVE. (And a bit hard to analyze with the human eye, because the left photo is smaller -- I couldn't find a bigger one.) You don't need to see the same as me. Everyone can see differently. What matters, as I already said, is that experts agreed it was manipulated. Everyone can decide whether to accept this argument or not. (Many people -- some of them naively -- seem to have an antipathy against Orbán because believed all the misleading propaganda that Orbán is a dictator; from these people, I don't expect that they will try to think clearly in the matter.)

I feel a double standard in the posts of many people. A double standard: whatever "confirms" Orbán is dictatoric, bad etc. is a VALID ARGUMENT, but whatever confirms something is suspicious* is "CONSPIRACY THEORY" and such.
(*crazy "international reaction" to worry about HU democracy, while in 2006 almost nothing; the German government's behavior and the amount of tax German companies need to pay; the left politician Asselborn's continous hysteria talks, etc.)

It's funny how some of you here talks about oppression. Many of you guys here do not even know what oppression is, not even from your parents or grandparents. Just because you support each other's theoretical viewpoint does not make you more credible.

In this thread and in the Hungary media law thread, I see much self-importance, amateurism, and big naiveness. (Note: again, noone should bother to misrepresent this: I don't say everyone who disagrees is the above; just that many posts are such.) Ragusa is a self-important, conceited amateur, but I pity him, because he suffers so much because of the "oppression" that he sees in Hungary. (Hint: there is no true oppression, but feel free to keep worrying.)
Many others are terribly naive. They believe they are so clever, yet they totally believe everything what they hear in the press and media.
Before someone would twist my words (some of you are masters of misrepresentation) that anyone who disagrees me is amateur or naive: I've seen pretty civilized, reasonable and non-arrogant viewpoints that disagreed me (in both Hungary threads). So, don't bother misrepresenting my conclusion; I only say very many (but obviously not all) people are naive (even on these boards), hell, such is the world.

This is lovely. I've experienced it so much online. You fail to understand (or pretend not to understand) my arguments, so you try to imply that they do not exist; that I only say I'm right and others are wrong. This is so terribly cheap. If you fail to understand that many of statements are also backed by my expertise in Hungary (-> read my post about implicit knowledge and competence), at least try to be humble and don't try to imply nonsense (that I think I'm right because I say so).

And who are you to tell that the new government is oppressing? Because there are some loud "protesters" in Hungary and in Europe (some of them are paid)? Because you think so yourself? Sure, you're free to tell whatever you want. But let the people of Hungary decide whether they are oppressed or not. Someone who feels "oppressed" can always be found; everywhere... Just they are not actually oppressed, they just make a hysteria for various reasons (yes, sometimes the hysteria -- just like in the media law case -- serves the interests of certain lobby groups). But in every democratic country, sooner or later these "oppressed" people become silent or just others start to ignore them, because noone is really interested in their hysteria.
So, dmc, you make fun of yourself in my eyes (and in the eyes of all those who truly know Hungary and its complex matters) that you tell the text what gives right to what to Orbán's party, and that you mention "oppressing"... you, from your comfortable seat in USA, think that you can tell who is oppressed here and who is not. Yes, as I told it before to Aldeth too, you CAN tell your opinion. Opinion, but not conclusions. The fact you think you can draw conclusions or tell self-confidently who may oppress who in Hungary: this just makes you look a total amateur who thinks himself to be "clever". Again, NOT BECAUSE you share your view to me and disagree with me; but because you seem to precisely "know" (or totally naively believe whatever manipulation you hear) that the new government is "oppressing" minorities etc. Others who sympathize with dmc: don't bother defending him and telling how wrong I am here. I already noticed that a significant part of the company who posted in my topic shares the same "clever" view: so any effort to convince you (or your effort to tell how wrong I'm) is pointless.

The problem is, people who share the same or similar mentality (or even similar misinformation!) do not consider 'reasonable' certain types of arguments that come from the opposite side. This is what you call "unreasonable insistence", while for the other party, your attitude might be forcing, arrogant and violent. For example: since you brought up Improved Anvil, certain people were simply STUPID to understand the technical solutions applied by Sikret, and instead of staying silent, they simply ignored the fact that they don't even understand deeply what they criticize.

Will you say that a maths professor who explains you something is "unreasonably insistent" when you're just too uneducated in the particular topic to understand his words? The same happened with Improved Anvil: those who do not even know programming or basic modding said that Sikret's arguments are "unreasonable" and that "Improved Anvil has a bad technical design". They made a fool of themselves. And something similar happens with certain people here: they do not have any implicit knowledge and experience with Hungary, but they make SELF-CONFIDENT statements about what happens here. Purely based on their common sense and what they receive from media/press.

You know, if there is a normal person among the group of fools, and the fools tell him he is a fool and they're the normal, this won't make the normal person a fool in practice. Some similar things happened in case of Improved Anvil (i.e. in the same topic, 10 people started supporting each other against Sikret, arguing that "since everyone says you the same Sikret, we are right"). And, BEFORE SOMEONE would misrepresent my statement, I don't say there are fools here or anything like that, but the analogy applies in the following way: as far as I experienced (and not just in SP), some forum posters think that it gives so much importance to their viewpoint that others share their viewpoint. Yes, it matters. No, it is not an exclusive thing. It can happen that almost everyone is wrong. It is cheap and disgusting when the international lobby tries to brainwash people by supporting anti-Orbán articles everywhere (The Economist's article was one example), and even many of you here, simply allow yourselves to be brainwashed. Instead of staying neutral and waiting a bit first before forming a viewpoint. Because, yes, clever noobs, WAITING (let me repeat: WAITING) is also an option: 1. you WAIT and follow the international situation if you're interested (and in the meantime, you can learn more about Hungary), 2. you form your OPINION. This is how educated people do, you know. Nothing forces you to form a self-confident viewpoint immediately. Yet, non-Hungarian people such as dmc or Ragusa IMMEDIATELY seem to know EVERYTHING about what happens now in Hungary and how dictatoric Orbán is. You make a fool of yourselves, guys. Perhaps not here, where you have big support of those who share your immediately formed opinion. But generally, believe me, you would be considered fools. In Hungary, we're taught from our childhood: "don't form a self-confident, loud opinion about something you don't know well enough". In the light of this:

Perhaps because I indeed tend to avoid loud self-confident comments when I don't know much about something (often rather passively reading a topic)? Hence when you see me posting, I post self-confidently because I talk about things where I have some basic level of understanding, at least.

Back to the main topic, I wish all those who judged Hungary without knowing it a nice worrying for the Hungarian democracy I'm already worried about poor Ragusa, he got so stressed due to the Hungarian situation...

As we say in Hungarian:
"Let them cook in their own soup". So I let some of you now to cook here in your own soup. Moreover, many thanks to those who provided reasonable and constructive comments to me (obviously, even to those who disagreed with me -- the world can only move forward via constructive conflicts; if everyone agreed, there would be little progress). Thanks to them, both in this thread and in the parent topic, Hungary media law.

Good cooking!

 

Regardless of all your attacks on us, and your insults, you have never been able to prove that the photo in question was manipulated. As you have been reminded, because the photos don't appear different, you have the burden of proof, which despite all your bleating, you have been unable to accomplish.

The interesting point is that many were sympathetic to your point of view when the thread opened. So, people were willing to be open-minded, despite the fact that some of us saw this as no big deal. Until they were presented with more facts.

What I'm "thinking" is that you sound much like some salesmen I used to work with; not very good ones either.

Happy selling.

 

This "on us" talk is funny. Taluntain also used it in some previous post. Is there some elite group here who tends to know things better than others? On a side note, I didn't even "attack" you, Chandos. And I already offered even arguments to confirm that the photo was manipulated. For example, about one of the descriptions that helps understanding the manipulation: the fact some people pretend to be stupid (or really are too stupid) to understand what I illustrated with the JPEG example is their problem, not mine.

More facts... More misleading information and lies! Come live in Hungary, and then decide. About your "no big deal" comment: yes, it's no big deal for you (now "you" is directed to all those non-Hungarians who immediately started worrying about HU democracy). Just like the media law is no big deal for you, even if you say the opposite. Just many of you pretend to be the protector of democracy (where was your loud voice in 2006 when police attacked protesters in Budapest?), but just from the safe distance and warm seats. It will be really no big deal for you what happens with Hungary. You worry about "oppression", but whatever happens in Hungary, you will not feel it on your own skin. The most important for you is that "freedom of speech" should keep its current meaning "freedom to present cr** and children-damaging material during the day on the TV channels". Whether Hungarian children will end up junkies and criminals is not important for you; just to force your "international and universal" view of "freedom of speech" on Hungary. The time has come: finally the Hungarian nation decides what will happen in this country; it is miserable and laughable if certain people try to attack this by lying that "the new majority oppresses the rights of minorty in Hungary". It is bull****. You don't live here, neither in majority nor in minority, so you can't know because you can't feel the reality on your skin; what you hear and think is mostly from news, which is often filled with bull****. (See Tal's sentence: "I read in the newspaper today...") But this would need its own thread.

It seems I used the wording that would be correct in Hungarian, but in English had the opposite meaning:

Obviously, I wanted to express this:

So the rest of that paragraph was supposed to tell: I see constructive comments (with no regard whether they basically agree or disagree with me), but also many (= not all) people here seem to be very very naive (e.g. those who think that the big international attack has nothing to do with money -- profit of the international media owners, for example). Now that I've corrected the language flaw in my English sentence, I think my point is clear.

Two points:
1.) Orban exactly knows what he is doing. It is the world of diplomacy, and he is great in it. Moreover, it is not true that the "EU has struck down" any law; Orbán agreed that if there are reasonable -- legal or political -- arguments against it based on the EXACT text of the law, from EU, then it will be changed. When he told in the past that Hungary doesn't intend to apply any changes, he always told it for the present moment (when he was asked). This was always obvious from his Hungarian statements. And since that time (or now) there was/is no EU suggestions for concrete changes, obviously no modifications will be made yet. Orbán knows what he is doing, you will see in the future.

2.) Your own words:

Typical. You read it in the newspaper, so you eat it exactly in the form you saw it written. This is also how Ragusa got the (disproved-by-me) false information on Ice-T's song, I suppose. "I read in the newspaper today that...". Wonderful.

 

I took that as an insult because I could not actually SEE any difference in the two photos. You can accuse me of poor eyesight, and that's fine, but I'm not "stupid" because I don't see any difference in the photos that were, according to you, given "advanced image manipulation." To me they still look pretty much the same regardless of how they were "manipulated."

And you offer as "proof," two different photos in which your fearless leader has two completely different facial expressions, and shout, "See the difference!" Great "proof."

 

Yes, the manipulation can hardly by distinguished explicitly from "recolouring" by most people (while it makes a different, stronger impression in your brain as if "recolouring" was used only), that's the point, man! You can't point to a part of the image and say: this was added! Just the OVERALL emotional effect of the photo is different. (In fact, even a complex transformation can be "called" as recolouring, just not a uniform one: so even the nonlinear tone manipulation they used according to expert Petromán can be called "recolouring" by journalists, to simple non-scientific audience...). OK, look at in this way: what you see in the manipulated second photo is not "pure" recolouring: it has subtle changes that your eye won't easily distinguish from "recolouring" (and this is what those noticed initially in this topic when they said something is wrong -- and don't tell me "new facts were provided to them"; do new facts change on their sight maybe?); simply because "recolouring" is not a well-defined term for the general audience, that is why The Economist can freely lie that it used simple linear recoloring.

If you had NEVER HEARD about anything in the current topic and would see these photos, which one would make the worse impression on you:



It is not linear recolouring. As the expert László Petromán said, it is a nonlinear transformation that manipulates with the relative balance (ratio) of tones, etc.

Go try to recolour the original photo and we'll see if you can come up with anything as "devilish" as the manipulated photo!

No, because you can't know if that Hungarian will be biased or not. Just like you can't know that about your newspaper. My point was that you unconditionally believe everything in the form you read, especially in one place. That's naive. Nonetheless, in this concrete case, the wording is totally inaccurate and strongly implies untrue things ("EU has struck down Orban's law and that he's already conceded to change all the problematic parts of it.").

 

"a Slovenian newspaper"? I suppose there are more there, so I suppose it depends which. Some may be less biased, others may be more biased (e.g. left ones, if any).

You didn't say remotely anything like that, but from your interpretation, it looks like the newspaper implied some sort of retreat of Orban ("conceded") regarding the media law, and that EU already has official problems with it ("struck down"). Neither is true. Orbán didn't say anything that would contradict his earlier statements (in the past, he said they won't change it for the being -- he never said that they would never touch it, including the near future). And EU did not strike down anything, they are examining it (and did not state any concrete problems about it officially).

Strike down (please extend the list I found if there are less strict meanings as well, I'm open to learning new things):

From where you take such nonsense? It doesn't mean anything to Orbán, really. He knows what he is doing, you will see. Even if the law needs to be changed severely, he will do according to the interests of the Hungarian nation. I even don't need to know what the various operative events mean to Orbán: I trust his ability to make great decisions and reactions (while many people nowadays are cynical and say "all politicians are just for their own pocket", I do believe Orbán has a vision, and yes, he has great achivements in the Hungarian economy between 1998-2002).

Most of the countries are simply envious to the democratic 2/3 of the Hungarian government They try to misrepresent Orbán's legal government as some sort of dictature, because their parliaments cannot accept anything serious because some votes are always missing

 

Well, he actually looks better in the one that you claim has been manipulated, so the technique can't be all that "advanced," or it could be that you don't know the real motives of the Economist. Maybe they were afraid the orginal would scare readers away.

 

His facebook page to the new SP fans of Viktor!

So what matters is that the foreign media publishes it, and not that the published material is accurate and unbiased (unlike The Economist's anti-Orbán article). Funny that you prove yourself by saying that the "media will probably say the same". If it's a lie or inaccurate information, oh, that doesn't matter, right? Just the "media picks it up", which makes the information accurate, eh?

Then subtitute my words accordingly; the meaning is the same: who are you to tell that it will end up in oppression?
Some of you lawyers are so funny and hopeless; if the law needs some changes (and these can be pointed by EU, not some hired journalists and money-worrying left ministers), it will be changed. As the EPP President said regarding the Hungarian media law:

Yes, practice. You and Ragusa should repeat this 100 times.

Something similar happened regarding the Improved Anvil BG2 mod as well, namely this "now I have a bad opinion about you" phenomenon. It is some sort of epidemy, I guess. What makes you think your precious opinion is so damn important? ("yours" refers to all those -- including dmc -- who seem to know "EVERYTHING" even in topics where they have missing expertise; in this case, this is missing knowledge about Hungary). I give you a hint: noone is interested much in your precious opinion. Why don't you go and analyze your Patriot Act instead? (which I admittedly do not know in details indeed, neither its exact embedment in the USA)

Moreover:

As far as I know, intelligent, educated people do not form their viewpoint regarding a country purely on laws. Maybe certain lawyers (you, Ragusa) do. It's sad. Forming (especially decreasing) an opinion on an entire country based on laws... it reflects some problems about the given person, actually. You can have an opinion on the legislation of the country, of the current leaders of the country, but generally... I think no further comment is needed. This is why you (as dmc, Ragusa and possibly others) will never understand what the value of human and culture (and cultural diversity) means. You only see paragraphs written on the forehead of people... Get a life guys, really... look, Viktor plays football (soccer!), he is not bad, wanna join him maybe?

 

...And Sarah Palin goes hunting and fishing. I guess that makes her one of "The People" too. Maybe they should both find caerers in keeping with their true talents.

 

Chandos: actually, Orbán's wife has a hunter license too, but it is not known how often he hunts in the practice.

On a side note, "get a life" was not addressed to you (I say this because you reacted to it, and of course you're free to do so, I just wanted you to know it). You weren't conceited and arrogant in the Hungary topics, and I appreciate that. (Joke: you are not a lawyer, right?)

Unless the foreign media translates the Slovenian text or you will find a Slovenian site/publication of English language with it, you won't be able to accomplish this. If you meant that it picks up news with the same information content, that is not anymore the same (because wording can matter a lot). I'm sleepy a bit at the moment, could you kindly tell me where is the link you've added? I'm just interested to read it in Slovenian (living many years in Czechoslovakia, I understand Slovak in a very good level, though I guess they are not very much similar).

 

I remembered that we talked a few words about it some years ago on IRC, and when you said "good day" (corresponding to "good afternoon") in Slovene, it looked or sounded very similar to its Slovak version to me.