Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DNC Salute to Vets Featured Backdrop Of Russian Warships

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the one-world-government dept.

Democrats 218

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Haha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470485)

First

Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. (3, Funny)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41470595)

After all, Americans fly into space with the help of aging Soviet technology; perhaps we'll be taking to the seas in mothballed Russian naval vessels - at least those ships won't be vulnerable to the Blue Screen of Death! :p

Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. (0)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41470617)

Ack, I meant to click "post," not "reply." Shit.

Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470629)

It will be RED instead!

Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471071)

Ha! We wouldn't kill the osprey, f22 or f35... but we're going to ditch our working destroyers? At least it'll take a while for all 62 of them to go out of service. And what's going to protect our 11 city sized carriers? I mean, we've got about 4,000 planes that need those. And what do the 71 subs do, now that they'll have no destroyers to roll with, escorting the carriers, carrying the planes?! IT'S INSANITY I TELL YOU!

Not gunna lie, it would be kinda sweet to get to use some of that $1.5 trillion a year on something with a return, though.

This happened a long time ago (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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?

Re:This happened a long time ago (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470677)

Slashdot's new motto - News that Fox News posted a month and change ago, and their mouth-breathers found it relevant.

Re:This happened a long time ago (1, Insightful)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | about 2 years ago | (#41470859)

Dumb avoidable mistakes are relevant. It is a peek at how a candidate's party will govern. Not that we need the peek -- it's no surprise that neither party is competent. We're circling the drain and they still want to have their slap fight.

Re:This happened a long time ago (3, Insightful)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about 2 years ago | (#41471061)

Oh...what a crock of shit. This error was caused by a staffer who prepared the presentation and didnt know better or someone either playing a practical joke or trying to embarass Obama.

Those ships were Soviet era warships. Someone in the navy, as i was during that era, would know that. Most civilians wouldn't know the difference.

And, why is this being posted weeks AFTER it occurred and has already hit the mainstream?

By the way, who is going to help Romney add roll-down windows to the airliners? You?

Re:This happened a long time ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471235)

By the way, who is going to help Romney add roll-down windows to the airliners? You?

The Russians?

Re:This happened a long time ago (1)

readin (838620) | about 2 years ago | (#41471335)

If it was prepared by a staffer then presumably reviewed by other people (if something that they planned to show at a big convention and on national TV wasn't reviewed by multiple people then there really is a serious leadership problem). What we can deduce is that no one involved 1. had enough military experience to notice the difference or thought it was worth checking to be sure that they were using American ships (they might not have been Russian - they might have been Chinese or who knows what).

It weakly suggests some management issues (only weakly because it was the type of gaffe that most organizations make occasionally) But it strongly suggests (though it doesn't prove) that the DNC puts a low priority on military matters.

Re:This happened a long time ago (5, Informative)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | about 2 years ago | (#41471529)

I used to be a staffer who prepared graphics for high level government presentations. I was hired because I knew what I was doing, and I'd have been fired if I made a mistake like this. Let me correct that -- I'd have been fired, my boss would have been fired, and the company for which I worked would have lost a multi-million dollar contract which would in turn place scores of other peoples continued employment in jeopardy.

To write this off as just some staffer's oversight displays a certain ignorance about how important presentations come together, how they're vetted, and the competency of people involved in creating those presentations.

Re:This happened a long time ago (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#41471287)

Christ this is fucking pitiful. You get a +5 insightful for an impossibly stupid argument that the mistake is indicative of how a political party will govern.

Really?

Slashdot actually runs the article here.... and has a fucking icon to represent Democrats. I know there are a ton of people here frothing at the mouth about Democrats, and Republicans (only to be drowned out by people who hate government period), but how more more ridiculous can this get?

This was on Slashdot? Some staffer who could not identify Russian warships in a presentation he was putting together becomes news worthy? Really?

This was simply some poor fool who did a Google image search and did not get "lucky" . People do stupid shit like this every 60 seconds in Corporate America.

Not News for Nerds. Not Stuff That Matters.

Re:This happened a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471349)

Really? The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces not knowing the difference between US forces and Russian forces "isn't news?"

But covering Romney making a joke about airplane windows is somehow a huge gaffe?

Oh, right. Liberals. They have no sense of scale.

Re:This happened a long time ago (2)

jrroche (1937546) | about 2 years ago | (#41471497)

Yes, Obama was personally in charge of putting together a presentation slideshow backdrop. He also handled all the travel arrangements, prepared all of the food at the convention, and swept up afterward. No wonder he looks so tired all the time!

Re:This happened a long time ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471867)

No shit, asshole. Like I said, it's pretty fucking sad when The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces can't identify ships when he's putting together a slideshow.

Re:This happened a long time ago (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471771)

It's really pretty funny, given that every time someone said they could see Russia from their living room, or that jesus rode around on the back of a t-rex, or that 47% of americans are degenerate do-nothings that only vote democrat, or that a president got his moral compass from text written on invisible tablets read out of a top hat by a known con man, it's always, "unimportant stuff blown way out of proportion".

Some AV contractor nobody knows pastes a google images silhouette of "battleships" into a glorified powerpoint... obviously Obama is a communist and the media didn't spend enough time on it because they're in on the conspiracy.

Goddamn knuckle-draggers, man. It's embarassing.

Re:This happened a long time ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471785)

Wow, the only poster here that's not a complete fucking fag.

Re:This happened a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471881)

Dumb avoidable mistakes are relevant.

I'm afraid you might not be getting the real story here ...

It's a dumb mistake, but in this case, it ain't that avoidable --- they're the ones who praised and helped the 'freedom fighters' in Libya to overthrow their dictator only to have the same Libyan 'freedom fighters' killing ambassador Chris Stevens.

Re:This happened a long time ago (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#41470827)

I for one have never heard of this. I'm betting a lot of people haven't.

What media? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471041)

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.

Re:What media? (2)

readin (838620) | about 2 years ago | (#41471361)

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.

Re:This happened a long time ago (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41471251)

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.

Look at all these fucks I give: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470503)

nt

Old news (4, Insightful)

Dave Emami (237460) | about 2 years ago | (#41470507)

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

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470649)

Russian ships, Turkish planes, all old news. Biden must have been in charge of the imagery.

Re:Old news (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 2 years ago | (#41470967)

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.

Re:Old news (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41471017)

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.

Re:Old news (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41471011)

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

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471175)

That was my first though : Wait, we had another DNC?

Oh... guess not. Just month-old news.

Republican Shills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470513)

More attacks on Obama. Slashdot is falling for the Rmoney kool-aid. Next you'll be parading around pictures of Obama with an iPhone and claiming he's a corporatist.

Re:Republican Shills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470579)

Wait, Omaba ISN'T a corporatist? Then why do I keep finding footage of him and Ronmey giving each other corporate reacharounds on the internet?

(The preceding was purely fictional, any relation to real persons is purely coincidental and in jest. Don't you just hate disclaimers?)

Wouldn't do that (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470613)

Next you'll be parading around pictures of Obama with an iPhone

Now why would we do that, since he doesn't even know how to use one [thegatewaypundit.com] ?

The problem of course was the iPhone "just works" and Obama is all about putting people and things OUT of work.

Re:Republican Shills (0)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 2 years ago | (#41470645)

Obama already explained this. It is George W Bushes fault. That's all the explination a true Democrat needs, or wants.

Re:Republican Shills (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470691)

And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black. If Obama was a white man you'd be praising the Democratic party for the work that's been accomplished under this administration. Instead you'll stand by and let the Republican wreck the country further because you're a racist.

Re:Republican Shills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470867)

And the only reason you hate the GP is because Obama's black. If Obama was a white man you'd be praising the GP for the post that it made. Instead you'll stand by and call the GP a racist because you're a racist.

Re:Republican Shills (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41470895)

...(looks in way-back machine to "election 2008")...

"You're just saying Obama isn't a good candidate because he's black, and you are a racist!"

"No, I think he's a bad candidate because his official policy statements cannot possibly be met, and because his plans to get us out of this recession slump resemble FDR's new deal, which historicallu tripled unemployment!"

"RACIST!" ......(steps out of the wayback mchine)....

"And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black. If Obama was a white man you'd be praising the Democratic party for the work that's been accomplished under this administration. Instead you'll stand by and let the Republican wreck the country further because you're a racist."

"No, the reason I don't like Obama is because he bailed out the people who flushed the economy down the toilet, continues to support printing money as economic stimulous which drives up inflation, enacted policies which tripled deficit spending, FAILED to close GITMO, EXPANDED govt wiretapping programs, and did exactly what I said he would do concerning unemployment."

Let me guess. "Racist!" Right?

Re:Republican Shills (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471133)

Conservatives are false-flagging the "racist" thing to make liberals look stupid and or epic troll. I caught one the other day saying "i bet if obama looked white they'd sing a different tune" about bin Laden. Just like how they "sang a different tune" when Clinton (a white guy) tried to have bin Laden killed (oh wait, they started screaming about wagging the dog).

Just ignore the race-baiters either way.

Re:Republican Shills (2, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41471259)

I dunno. That would require contemplating the idea that the republican party actually had sufficient intelligence to enact such a tactic. Given their track record, and inability to keep things secret, such a faux pas as that would have already exploded in their faces like a loaded cigar.

Occam's razor says to pick the least convoluted explanation.

It is more likely that some percentage of the population actually voted for obama _because_ he was black, while totally ignoring his political platform, and ascribed all resistance to "their" candidate as de-facto racism. To wit: the widely monetized sales of Obama's "historic" inauguration speech, clearly marketed toward african americans.

I don't care what color Obama is. He could have been the first green president for all I care; his policies were abysmal, and his track record is nothing I want to see more of.

I ascribe the "racist!" Posts and rhetoric I see as "racially biased electioneering part II", and find them offensive in every possible sense. That people have forgotten how heavily the word "racist" was slung around 4 years ago deeply saddens me. I don't know how many times I was accused of that disgusting vice 4 years ago for merely questioning obama as a candidate, based on his POLICY statements!

That was the reason for the prior post. Anyone with doubts can just go to waybackmachine.org, type slashdot.org for the site, 2008 for the year, and see for themselves.

Re:Republican Shills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471295)

That was a great hypothetical argument with an idiot.
But I know of no one who would argue that way. I've seen this racist claiming Obama supporter mentioned again and again, but no one can ever say who it was, it's just a fiction.
Kinda like the Obama bailout - Bush signed TARP. Look up the date- December2008.
Maybe I should change the first sentence from "with an" to "between two."

Re:Republican Shills (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41471679)

If it's a fiction, then why does a google search return hits from reputable news sources concerning racial mudslinging being used by democrats against percieved republicans?

Re:Republican Shills (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41471849)

For instance, these two:

Abcnews.com [go.com]

wash.post [washingtonpost.com]

Granted, both are blogs, but if it were a fiction, how could both blog entries comment on official political rhetoric?

Delusion (2)

Dave Emami (237460) | about 2 years ago | (#41471023)

And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black.

You honestly believe that? You really think that everyone who opposes Obama would be just fine with him if he were Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, or Al Franken? Or that, conversely, they'd vote for those guys rather than Condi Rice or Allen West?

It's not as if I agreed with Obama back when he was a white guy named Jimmy Carter.

Re:Republican Shills (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#41471579)

But I do think this gaffe is good to point out in the wake of the Romney airplane windows gaffe, which has gotten so much attention. People on both sides make a big deal about nothing just to have the satisfaction of one-upping the other guys on trivial matters. Now that these stupid "aha look how dumb they are" moments have happened to both sides, I really hope everyone who has joined in on the mockery can step back and take a look at themselves.

In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#41470523)

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

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41471271)

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

In Soviet Russia warships back YOU!

Well, this confirms it... (3, Funny)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#41470533)

Democrats are commies

(I kid)

Re:Well, this confirms it... (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41471051)

Of course you kid. Nowadays not even the commies are commies [factsanddetails.com] .

Says who? (0)

HanzoSpam (713251) | about 2 years ago | (#41470551)

What makes you think it was a mistake?

Slashdot... news for ... WHO GIVES A SHIT? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470557)

Story is -1 offtopic

Re:Slashdot... news for ... WHO GIVES A SHIT? (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#41470801)

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

In Other Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470559)

The Cold War has ended.

And the jets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470565)

... were from Turkey.

Asleep At The Wheel (3, Funny)

Baby Duck (176251) | about 2 years ago | (#41470619)

Slashdot. OLD ASS NEWS for Nerds.

Re:Asleep At The Wheel (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#41470737)

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

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

Re:Asleep At The Wheel (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41470969)

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?

Nothing to see here... (0, Troll)

Nexion (1064) | about 2 years ago | (#41470623)

Just socialist America standing before a socialist backdrop.

Re:Nothing to see here... (0, Troll)

meglon (1001833) | about 2 years ago | (#41470943)

I'd rather be a socialist thinking that power should be held by the people, then a fucking fascist conservative who think power should be held by businesses and people are nothing more than disposable slave labor.

But, then again, my advice to you is: if you don't know what a word means (like: socialist), you probably shouldn't use it... cause it makes you look like an ignorant idiot.

Re:Nothing to see here... (1)

readin (838620) | about 2 years ago | (#41471505)

People who have the guns should have the least freedom to exercise their power. There needs to be some institution that exercises legitimate force for purposes such as law enforcement and wars - but that institution, since it operates on the power of the gun, should be severely limited.

Corporations and businesses can be just as amoral and even immoral as the government, but unlike the government, corporations and businesses don't have guns backing them up. You don't like the Microsoft monopoly? You may find it difficult to make a lot of money and run the software you want if you install Linux, buy Apple, or just refuse to use a home computer, but you won't find yourself hauled before a judge by armed police officers like you might if you refuse to pay your taxes.

Re:Nothing to see here... (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#41471669)

The thing is, socialist slogans proclaiming they're for the people aren't too different from capitalist slogans proclaiming they're for freedom. It all winds up in a race for who can use whom to empower himself. My advice is: be skeptical of everything, particularly of ideals which you hold dear.

Could be worse (1)

speedlaw (878924) | about 2 years ago | (#41470627)

At least it wasn't Pedobear at the Olympics.

Old news (3, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#41470637)

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?

Re:Old news (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41470765)

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 (5, Interesting)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#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'.

Re:Old news (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41471193)

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 sure you're already muttering the answer: tradition. Military services live on the stuff. Navy recruits need to hear about John Paul Jones and Midway, Marines about Chosin Reservoir, etc., etc., or morale goes all to hell. The Canadians discovered that when they went to a unified service.

But if an officer doesn't even know about that stuff, you have to wonder how hard his service is working to maintain traditions.

Re:Old news (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 2 years ago | (#41470917)

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 emotions, not a documentary. It says "we care about our soldiers and our art department can't tell which is the business end of any military hardware". Which is OK, because presumably the art department is not invited to give its opinion on military matters.

Re:Old news (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41471269)

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 of a nation the U.S. spend over 40 years preparing to fight) is part of their training.

Re:Old news (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 2 years ago | (#41471317)

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.

Re:Old news (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41471757)

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

Re:Old news (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 2 years ago | (#41471821)

I stand corrected.

Re:Old news (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 2 years ago | (#41471873)

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

Re:Old news (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 2 years ago | (#41471169)

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

Re:Old news (2)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | about 2 years ago | (#41471177)

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 leadership, a better issue would be the childlike bickering between officers of the different branches ("if you say that a Navy plane is an Air Force plane they won't hear to you, even if it is not related to the argument!")

A mistake but... (1)

verifine (685231) | about 2 years ago | (#41470639)

Anybody can make a mistake, but this was a doozy!

Also, as others have pointed out, this is really old news. I have to wonder how people can be isolated from what's going on to the extent it takes three weeks for the facts to trickle down to them. A little scary.

Re:A mistake but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470823)

I first noticed this on the Drudge Report.

Was it ever reported on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Huffington Post, or the New York Times? Not that any of those lean to the left and would have spiked the story, or anything...

Re:A mistake but... (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about 2 years ago | (#41471449)

Interesting enough that I thought I'd take a look at abcnews.com. So, in the search I type "DNC russian ship" first and then "DNC soviet ship". In neither case did their search return the story that we are discussing (at least on the first page).

However, in both cases the first story presented (sorting by relevance) has the headline "Puckish Russian Offers Romney a Plane Whose Windows Open". At least the story did admit that Romney was joking.

Re:A mistake but... (1)

Archfeld (6757) | about 2 years ago | (#41471483)

LOL the Onion did NOT pick it up so of course none of the reputeable national news services got it either.

Re:A mistake but... (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | about 2 years ago | (#41471283)

It's mostly that there's been a lot of bad press for Romney lately as his campaign goes down the shitter, so, well, quick guys, have something to distract from his failings!

*rolls eyes* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470647)

Stupidest Slashdot front-page story EVER?!

BUT WHY?!?!?!1111 (2)

Bananatree3 (872975) | about 2 years ago | (#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? (3, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | about 2 years ago | (#41470725)

Why is this on /.?

Re:Why is this here? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41470825)

Because the guy who made the presentation used Firefox on a Mac to Google the images.

Because... (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#41470831)

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.

Can you say partisan post? (2)

Sir_Kurt (92864) | about 2 years ago | (#41470753)

Nuff said!

Picts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470793)

Pictures... or it didn't happen.

The ironing was more delicious for the BNP (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41470811)

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 (5, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Typical PR folks (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41470997)

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.

Re:Typical PR folks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471383)

One of the biggest problems we have is frankly too much data. Period. I think the fact that so much of it is shit data is because nobody (even the people paid to do so) has the time or the energy to sift through it. So as a society we just keep getting more and more poor data. And that's before you even consider the people manipulating the available info for malice and self interest. But I honestly don't see how you get back from that feedback loop. It's tempting to say we just need better data, how are you to genuinely weight that from the poor? So then you say we need to reduce the volume of information available to John Citizen but that likewise is antithetical to free speech, free information and is ripe for corruption. Definitely a problem for smarter people than me.

Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470861)

Usually we've got rely on the Republicans for this level of foot-in-mouth and general lack of attention to detail. Nice attention to detail, Dems.

I'm sure Fox News will never let anyone hear the end of this for the next eight months. They're probably just running out of buckets to cum in to as we speak

More space perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470897)

It kinda goes along with this earlier story: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/president-obama-asks-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/

Shocking! (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#41470907)

I'm shocked, I tell you shocked!

Does anyone have an empty chair so I can sit down?

Turkey! (2)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 years ago | (#41470945)

At least the nitwits got US made F-5 fighters in the backdrop... Unfortunately, they belonged to the Turkish Air Force... [dailycaller.com]

Meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41470953)

Who cares? It's time for military worship to fall into humanities past anyway.

Oh boy (0)

Goodyob (2445598) | about 2 years ago | (#41471043)

I guess that's what they get for RUSSIAN the set design

All your warships... (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41471247)

are belong to us

"apparent error"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471309)

Of course it was an error, are you dense?

BREAKING NEWS (1)

Keen Anthony (762006) | about 2 years ago | (#41471355)

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 constructing a large boat on his front lawn. The Ark as he has called it is already catching the ire of the neighborhood home owner's association. HOA representative Ruth Samuel issued a statement earlier this evening: "Clearly, this boat violates his home owner's agreement. Look at the size of this thing. And the animals! It's like he has two of every kind here. They smell horrible. They're ruining the lawns, ALL of the lawns. I don't even know how he could have gotten them all here this quickly. It's a gated community." When asked for comment, Noah replied: "Storm's a comin'. She's comin' on strong."

Seriously, Slashdot. Get a calendar.

That's it, I'm done with Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41471623)

Over the last few years, this crap has gotten worse and today is just the last nail in the coffin for me (and I've got a 5-digit UID for fucks sake!). This was posted weeks ago - WEEKS and you crackheads decide to post it now? On top of this, the political nature of the stories is just getting worse and worse, along with a lot more ignorant posters that just can't seem to do anything but post utter crap against each other with no valid content. If I wanted this type of bullshit, I'd head over to whatever media site and scroll through the comments of all the other dipshits that can't do anything but call people names.

I'm done and not coming back.

posted as an AC because I simply can. Not worth me even logging into my account to post to this shitty as site.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?