Misleading border photo use shows silliness of approved journalists

Pratt on TexasIt would easy to beat-up on the press for its collective and specific dishonesty in being caught using the image of a crying two-year-old illegal alien from Honduras for its propaganda purposes of enraging people over border enforcement.

It would be especially easy to beat-up on what is left of the once important Time magazine for putting a cutout of that girl, modified, on the Time cover to depict President Trump looming over the girl to push the story that Trump is ripping children away from their mothers and fathers.

We now know the propaganda image was false. “Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, 32, told the UK Daily Mail that his wife Sandra, 32, had taken their daughter, Yanela Denise, on a dangerous journey to the U.S. on June 3 without telling him. They had since been in touch, he said, and he learned the two had been detained together but never separated,” reported Breitbart.

The larger issue here is the story behind the photo where professional … photojournalist, took the photo and simply assumed that the girl would be separated from her mother and did nothing to confirm such.

That factually story has been confirmed by authorities too; the mother was arrested for illegally re-entering the country and was taken with her child to a Texas family detention center.

The larger issue here is the story behind the photo where professional Getty Images photographer John Moore, a photojournalist, took the photo and simply assumed that the girl would be separated from her mother and did nothing to confirm such.

Search names like the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post along with “suspended” and you’ll find that it gets so bad that even these heavily slanted media outlets regularly find their staff made things up.

The photo of the crying girl and the reality of dishonest professional journalism demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the idea in salons of this country, and others, that journalists not licensed by some governing body or credentialed by some legacy media outlet, usually liberal, should be denied access and not considered of the “press”, vis-à-vis the First Amendment in our case.

What do you think?...

© Pratt on Texas / Perstruo Texas, Inc.