The article title is overly kind; the White House didn't defend the image, they dismissed it as an issue.
This reporting presents it as a debate with reasoning on both sides, rather than a brazen act with no defence supplied. It's not good journalism to legitimise a position that didn't even attempt to legitimise itself.
This has been the story the whole time. Coupled with the insistence the media is unfair they’ve managed to shift the window of what is acceptable. It’s been remarkably effective and most news sources seemingly have no counter.
It's not even about whats acceptable, it's about what they can frame as a narrative for their supporters in as incendiary a manner as possible. Remember that the FCC investigations into Comcast and NBCUniversal weren't predicated on political bias or uneven reporting, but rather that they '...may be promoting invidious forms of DEI in a manner that does not comply with FCC regulations.”
Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters, summarises its mechanisms and intent quite succinctly: “This is the path that Viktor Orbán took in Hungary, where you use the power of the state to ensure that the media is compliant, that outlets are either curbed and become much less willing to be critical, or they are sold to owners who will make that happen."
I don’t disagree that’s a lot of it, and with Hungary as my possible second citizenship have been following Orban closely. I do think there’s something different happening here though. The loop is:
- Do something wildly unacceptable
- Media writes an article declaring the action is indefensible
- Those involved complain publicly about the unfair nature of the story; their supporters back them up
- Next time to avoid controversy media writes a slightly more fair story
It doesn’t even require state power because technically in the US they cannot. There is clearly threat of power kicking journalists out of the pentagon is a clear example. But it’s much more about creating a permission structure through public airing of grievances.
Worse, it seems that these institutions have internalized this as a good thing. "Liberal columnists criticizing the left" is seen as a sign of intellectual righteousness while criticizing the right is seen as behavior that is beneath elite institutions like the New York Times.
The net effect is that when Trump says "we are going to fix housing prices by deporting fifty million people" the Times writes that while the policy may not work it does seem like Trump is trying to tackle the rising cost of housing.
Counter to what? Most news sources are owned by people who support this administration’s positions, and are glad they don’t have to do this whole charade of pretending to care about the truth or normal people.
I mean Donald Trump on Tuesday posted an AI-generated image of himself holding an American flag next to a sign that read "Greenland". Previously he had posted fake videos of Obama being arrested. We're a long way past traditional notions of journalism in this post-satire reality - and the BBC has to adhere to 'rules for me, not for thee' moral outrage after its recent gaffe broadcasting an edited speech of Trumps.
This regime is just a symptom, it didn't emerge from a vacuum, rather it's a manifestation of the culture that nourishes it. This sort of vindictive cruelty and mockery is what voters liked most about Trump, they found it refreshing. What's deeply sick is the society that voted this regime into power - twice - and still supports it.
And I'm including the "leftists" who decided a second Trump term was preferable to the "status quo" under Kamala Harris, or that it didn't matter because "both parties were the same." There's a special circle of Hell reserved for that lot.
Trump 1.0 I dismissed as an aberration, but Trump 2.0 has truly exposed the inhumanity of a significant segment of US society, that was always there beneath the surface since slavery and Jim Crow just waiting for "normalization" that would allow it to re-emerge. I was naive about the progress the US had made over the last century, and it has been a rude awakening. I no longer want to raise my kids here and am actively working towards emigrating.
The White House said "The memes will continue". Dodging the direct question while at the same time admitting it is a doctored image as it qualifies as a 'meme'. Obviously it masquerades as truth and this is terrifying deception.
What should I expect from the same administration that also altered the (tiny fraction of) Epstein files before releasing them.
This is just so absolutely stupid. This group of people have somehow got it in their heads that their primary job is owning the libs, and not governing.
Independent of your views on immigration, or law and order, or anything. Juvenile shit like this does absolutely nothing to advance any policy goals.
Even worse, why should you average normie trust any image that comes out from the White House? If there's a serious national security issue, why are we going to trust a group of people who are willing to doctor a photo for such stupid ends?
> Independent of your views on immigration, or law and order, or anything. Juvenile shit like this does absolutely nothing to advance any policy goals.
You should stop appealing to some kinds of higher principles that are provably inexistant among Trump supporters. This kind of juvenile shit is why they like him in the first place. Anyone still siding with them deserves only scorn and disgust.
> This group of people have somehow got it in their heads that their primary job is owning the libs, and not governing.
Their voters wanted exactly that tho. Although they did not wanted harm for themselves, conservatives and republicans actively wanted this kind of "owning the libs" and insulting "the libs".
The democrats did try to do things like pass a huge expansion in immigration enforcement. Harris promised to have a republican in her cabinet. She campaigned with Liz Cheney. Did republican voters suddenly jump on board? No.
The Biden administration slow-rolled prosecution of Trump for his crimes because they wanted to court moderates and republicans. That failure enabled Trump to run again from somewhere other than prison.
"If only the dems had run Romney for president, then they would have won" is not serious.
> The democrats did try to do things like pass a huge expansion in immigration enforcement.
IIRC, Biden hemmed and hawwed on border environment until like a couple months before the election, when he issued some executive orders that actually had an impact. But that was too little, too late.
> Harris promised to have a republican in her cabinet. She campaigned with Liz Cheney. Did republican voters suddenly jump on board? No.
Except that was misunderstanding "republican voters" and the energy Trump was tapping into. Getting Liz Cheney on board was just Dem elitists trying to ally with the dying and unpopular elitist wing of the Republican party.
I'm talking about something far more radical than some warmed over 2000s centrism: jettison the much of the social-justice activist baggage and co-opt some of Trump's populist appeal, like his rejection of neoliberalism and support for effective border enforcement.
So Harris goes on stage and says that we are going to amend Title 7 to expressly exclude LGBT people from its protection. This would have led to victory?
> IIRC, Biden hemmed and hawwed on border environment until like a couple months before the election
You recall incorrectly. The Biden admin was trying to push congress to pass a bi-partisan immigration bill. It was torpedoed by Trump when he wasn't even in an elected position on the basis that it would help his campaign run on Biden's "immigration failures".
Trump does not support effective immigration enforcement whereby the rule of law is carried out. Rather Trump supports similarly ineffective immigration enforcement, just with the incompetence accruing in the opposite direction.
The point is twofold. First, we need to stop letting the fascists own this idea that they're effective at anything beyond causing unnecessary human suffering (that many of their sick supporters actually seem to relish).
Second, regardless of the Democrats' policies, the fascists won by promising a siren song of simplistic fairy tale answers that were never going to work out (obvious to anybody using half their brain). There is no way to remain honest and overcome this when the People want to choose feel-good lies over uncomfortable truths. And if you try to compete by adopting similarly dishonest tactics, you're never going to catch up to the fascists who have years of a head start and an emotionally-resounding message of restorative cruelty.
I disagree. The Dems shot themselves in the foot for several reasons:
- trying to appeal to the "center" instead of going the other way and channelling the more radical elements' rage against Trump. I believe Bernie would have beaten Trump as the nominee. Yes, the GOP would have painted him as a "Communist destroying the American Way of Life", but they did that to Harris anyway so being centrist gave the Dems nothing.
- not focusing on prices and jobs from day one, in simple terms the average uneducated worker could understand, and mostly, trying to say "things are good/better" which may have been true, but everyone else thought they were not when they went to buy eggs
- Biden trying to stay in for a second term instead of bowing out at the start
> It was massively selfish and incompetent for them not to make major policy pivots with the goal of just annihilating Trump and his movement. Instead they just treated it as a regular election, where the goal was to eek out a victory for their partisans.
It sounds a lot like you actually agree; those are all reasons why every Democrat constituent should be livid with the party "establishment". Instead, any time this point is brought up, people respond instantly with the "it's not a 'both sides' issue" thought-terminating cliché. In this case, one person says, "Okay, but obviously the other people shot themselves in the foot" and the response is "I disagree, here's how they shot themselves in the foot".
I think so. Something more in the Sanders direction would have been way better, though with a keener eye towards not alienating working-class folks (like putting a massive student loan forgiveness plan front-and-center did), with Trump's rejection of free-trade dogma, and jettisoning the social justice activism that loses rural areas and many working-class voters.
> Instead, any time this point is brought up, people respond instantly with the "it's not a 'both sides' issue" thought-terminating cliché
"Both sides" itself is also often a thought-terminating cliche. It is always important to look at the larger context these points are being made in.
Here, the original comment was taking individual Republican voters to task for supporting this performatively-cruel societally-destructive con man with a proven track record. This is something that every individual Republican voter directly did, while Democrat voters did not do and would not have ended up doing [had Harris won]. Harris, for all of her faults and would-have-been letdowns, did not openly run on a platform of destroying our society. Reasonable people can disagree with her policies, but she appeared to be poised to at least lead the country rather than deliberately divide us.
But the comment responding to that then tried to equate that blame to "both sides", going so far as to use the word "collectively" to try and bootstrap personal responsibility from the (obviously terrible) actions of the Democratic party.
So no, that is not an equal criticism in the context of criticizing Republican voters who actively voted for overt evil! The many failings of the Democratic party is something that definitely needs to be discussed, but not in the context of the much larger and more serious problems in the Republican party. Rather, bringing it up here seems like yet another instance of the only-Democrats-have-agency fallacy.
(I presume the downvotes without comment are just the same old fascism supporters who hate my framing because it clashes with the lies they tell themselves about what they voted for. The funny part is I'm no friend of the Democratic party either - I'm a libertarian who actually believes in many of the issues Trump abuses to rabble-rouse. But my country called, so I swallowed my own independent individualist pride and answered that call rather than falling for the siren song of destructionist grievance politics)
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Trump literally got elected off of pure partisan vilification, insults and just bullshit in general. The idea that the left need to go high while Trump and the GOP openly courted shit like pizzagate is just nonsense.
The fact that the dems are weak assholes unable to make even symbolic measures towards someone that's openly violating the constitution and harassing citizens is symptomatic of the deeper rot of attempting to be a 'big tent' party and having zero actual spine or policy.
> This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Trump literally got elected off of pure partisan vilification, insults and just bullshit in general.
Did you pay any attention at all to the 2024 election? Biden's age? Inflation? The half-hearted, too-late pivot on border enforcement? What you say is nonsense. It's twisted misinformation. There was a lot more going on.
> The idea that the left need to go high while Trump and the GOP...
Yeah, it's cathartic to act like a kid on a playground, and unleash your inner asshole because some other kid was mean, but it's stupid and immature.
> The fact that the dems are weak assholes unable to make even symbolic measures towards someone that's openly violating the constitution and harassing citizens is symptomatic of the deeper rot of attempting to be a 'big tent' party and having zero actual spine or policy.
The dems are weak, but that's because they want to stay exactly as they are instead of becoming a truly majoritarian party. If the dems make Trump-like power grabs (as many liberals fantasize about), it'll just make Trump stronger, because he can and will use the backlash.
> Did you pay any attention at all to the 2024 election? Biden's age? Inflation? The half-hearted, too-late pivot on border enforcement? What you say is nonsense. It's twisted misinformation. There was a lot more going on.
Did you? Biden and the Democratic party was entirely focused on attempting to appeal to 'centrists' and Republicans, exactly what you wanted and they lost because of it.
> Yeah, it's cathartic to act like a kid on a playground, and unleash your inner asshole because some other kid was mean, but it's stupid and immature.
No, it's called having an actual policy and stance. If someone's behaving like a dumb asshole then they should be called out on being a dumb asshole. We should expect more from our politicians and one of those things involves actually calling this shit out.
> The dems are weak, but that's because they want to stay exactly as they are instead of becoming a truly majoritarian party. If the dems make Trump-like power grabs (as many liberals fantasize about), it'll just make Trump stronger, because he can and will use the backlash.
At this point, the only recovery from the damage Trump has inflicted upon this country is going to be a massive power grab. That means dissolving ICE and arresting everyone involved, packing the supreme court, pulling out all of the Trump appointees and criminally investigating everyone involved with this administration. And let me be very clear: any Dem that does not agree not only deserves to lose, but they deserve to be harassed for the rest of their life and never, ever hold another job again. There is no middle ground anymore.
> attempting to appeal to 'centrists' and Republicans, exactly what you wanted
Why do you think this is what they wanted?
> At this point, the only recovery from the damage Trump has inflicted upon this country is going to be a massive power grab. That means dissolving ICE and arresting everyone involved, packing the supreme court, pulling out all of the Trump appointees and criminally investigating everyone involved with this administration. And let me be very clear: any Dem that does not agree not only deserves to lose, but they deserve to be harassed for the rest of their life and never, ever hold another job again. There is no middle ground anymore.
This just ignores the point from the parent comment it is in response to; regardless of how agreeable these actions would be to you and others (myself included), there are many who could be easily convinced that the result will be harmful to them pretty much "because it's 'the Democrats' doing it". You can arrest however many thousands of politicians and agents; the problem would be exacerbated in that case since the same people who voted for Trump twice would feel even more aggrieved. Many of them like what (they think) he's doing and would jump at any opportunity to vote for someone similar.
What you describe would not be the recovery you hope for, at least not long term. Granted, I don't know what would be, but this issue is one of "post-truth" where significant amounts of people can simultaneously be convinced of conflicting opinions about an event, even given videos from multiple perspectives, as we learned recently. Throwing an easily-contested "massive power grab" into the mix is not a serious suggestion. The political machine that got Trump elected will easily get another demagogue elected off the back of lies mixed with truths about said power grab.
>> At this point, the only recovery from the damage Trump has inflicted upon this country is going to be a massive power grab.
> This just ignores the point from the parent comment it is in response to; regardless of how agreeable these actions would be to you and others (myself included), there are many who could be easily convinced that the result will be harmful to them pretty much "because it's 'the Democrats' doing it".
And I a key point is: rejection of Trump is not an endorsement of the Democrats, let alone a full-throated one. Remember: the Democrats are still really unpopular. A Trump-like Democratic power grab is just as unacceptable to many people, and putting voters in the position of choosing between two unacceptable power grabs to not a recipe for resounding electoral success. It's likely a recipe for failure.
A power-grab would emotionally satisfying for partisan Democrats, as they are angry at Trump and would be happy with the result. The problem is they aren't even close to a majority, and they're exactly the kind of people who should be told to hold their nose instead of being catered to.
>> And let me be very clear: any Dem that does not agree not only deserves to lose, but they deserve to be harassed for the rest of their life and never, ever hold another job again. There is no middle ground anymore.
The GP has a totally unreasonable attitude. It sounds like emotional lashing out rather than anything helpful or productive.
I wouldn't be so dismissive. With only two choices, you get a lot of variation on both sides. I'm sure some people were motivated by animosity, racism, misogyny. Others were likely motivated by things Trump is willing to say out loud: Our trade policies are hurting average Americans. Our oversea imperialism does not benefit average Americans. We need to "drain the swamp". Of course his policies actively make all those problems worse, and could generally be described as an unmitigated disaster, but the pitch was compelling to at least some set of his voters.
I am not being dismissive. I genuinely think that.
> I'm sure some people were motivated by animosity, racism, misogyny.
A lot of them were, in fact. But that was not my claim. Above all, they wanted to see this kind of behavior. That is what was Trumps main attraction the whole time.
> Our oversea imperialism does not benefit average Americans.
Trump is pure imperialist. His international politics is literally imperialism.
> We need to "drain the swamp".
Trump is the swamp and made corruption much much worst.
> Our trade policies are hurting average Americans.
Trumps and republican politics in general hurts average Americans even more. And it was the plan the whole time, Project 2025 is all about hurting average Americans.
I agree with all your points about Trump's actual behavior, and assure you that nobody dislikes him more than I do!
That said, I think "Trump's voters are all assholes" is a talking point NOT of liberal voters, but of the Democratic party, because it conveniently avoids any discussion of policy, particularly where the party and its typical voters may differ.
Trade is a good example. The bipartisan consensus since Clinton has largely been that unfettered trade is good. However, if you work in manufacturing, or are in a labor pool that competes with former manufacturing workers (or workers who might have chosen a career in manufacturing, or mechanical engineering, or processing engineering), then there are certainly some drawbacks to consider.
To be clear: I do not in any way endorse Trump's policy. I am not trying to discount "owning the libs", or violent racism, certainly both motivators for a good chunk of the MAGA camp. I am saying that it is worth considering policy issues that may have convinced people to vote for him. Especially if you separate campaigning from implementation. Trump's foreign policy has been intervention-heavy, but his rhetoric was frequently isolationist.
> That said, I think "Trump's voters are all assholes" is a talking point NOT of liberal voters, but of the Democratic party, because it conveniently avoids any discussion of policy, particularly where the party and its typical voters may differ.
I agree with what you said, that's definitely a talking point meant to maintain a feeling of righteousness while avoiding self-reflection.
I disagree with distinction between the "Democratic party" and "liberal voters," if anything, I'd say it's the opposite. By and large, I'd expect the professionals of the party to not be so stupid to use "Trump's voters are all assholes" as a talking point (even if they think it). IMHO, it's a talking point of extremely polarized liberal voters, who are letting their emotions get the better of them, and themselves thinking and acting in a more Trump-like manner.
Both the party and its voters seem extremely reluctant to think about their role in this, and seem to prefer to continue to make the same mistakes, hoping luck or other-side incompetence brings them a better result next time. It's so stupid.
> I'm sure some people were motivated by animosity, racism, misogyny.
> Others were likely motivated by things Trump is willing to say out loud ... his policies actively make all those problems worse
These two things are not mutually exclusive, but rather they are directly related. Republicans reflexively categorizing people into "good people" and "other" is exactly what made them not listen to any of the substantive criticism of Trump's "policies" in the context of what he claimed they would achieve [0]
Racism, misogyny, etc form the main structure of this dynamic, because they are straightforward categories that can be quickly judged. Even without any societal history of racism, it's too easy to adopt a 90% rule that white -> ingroup, and nonwhite -> outgroup. Since this categorization system now has "predictive power" [1], it becomes worth augmenting it with more rules and exceptions. A non-white person can become "one of the good ones" by "acting white". A white woman can remain ingroup-accepted by "knowing her place", or can become part of the outgroup by actively rejecting the heteronormative role(s) (eg declaring herself a lesbian).
After this stews for a while, gaining more and more "predictive power" (aka confirmation bias), there becomes a tacit rule that anybody not nodding in full agreement with the Party mantras is also in the outgroup. Essentially everyone "good" must be supporting this particular leader and repeating the litanies of a narrow Overton window - if you're not onboard, then the simple answer is you're not "good" and therefore not worth listening to at all - even if you're merely trying to point out how they are not going to get what they themselves claim to want.
The end result is basically a self-reinforcing cult that goes off the rails of all reason, and here we are.
[0] it's understandable that people reject criticisms of policies that come from a place of judging them with different values. For example, someone arguing that tariffs are bad because free trade is inherently good and brings benefits somewhere else, handwaving about the manufacturing economy being disrupted - not going to be very convincing to anyone that sees the lack of manufacturing jobs as a problem. But here I am talking about criticism within the policies' own stated goals. For example, even accepting the goal of wanting to bring manufacturing back, the current tariff policies are abjectly terrible.
[1] also given an effectiveness boost by most people not seeing a significant number of people from the "obvious outgroup" in their day to day lives, and instead mostly only sees them through mass media which highlights the worst examples
Aaand it's flagged. Can someone explain to me how an article about one of the world's most influential governments posting digitally altered imagery as fact is off-topic in regards to tech and computer science?
It's the non-stop openly lying to judges in court that should be the worldwide newspaper headline
That's some post-constitutional anti-democracy bullsh*t right there that should have zero tolerance because that means everything else is likely a lie.
It's like a virus since he came down the golden escalator, first every single thing he said was a lie or wild exaggeration, and then he recruited exclusively only people around him to do the same.
There's good reason the highest power positions in the government are HIS PERSONAL LAWYERS with legal obligation first to him beyond anything else.
The title is a bit misleading, at least, I interpreted it wrong. The white house took a photo of a woman who was arrested, but expressionless, and used AI to make it look like she was crying. Insanely disgusting behaviour.
I’m genuinely curious about how this title was misleading. I have not heard anything about this issue until this link on HN. I did indeed assume the crying was added by AI at the behest of White House staff.
Please don’t misread: I am genuinely curious how I one may have read this another way and how that could have been helped with rewording.
1. "Defends" suggests some level of explanation and justification; the White House did not present any here.
2. "AI image showing arrested woman" could mean a fully-generated image of a woman, rather than editing an image of an existing person under law enforcement control to disguise the actual facts. The first one would be bizarre, the second one is much more problematic.
There is no meaningful difference between a 100% percent fabricated image and a some slightly smaller percentage of a digitally manipulated image when presented from the government as fact. There's no need to split hairs.
It's the difference between drawing a cartoon and editing a photograph; the second one is a definite attempt to misrepresent matters of fact, the first could be argued to be illustrative only.
Oh in my head I just assumed they used AI to generate an image of a woman crying while being arrested from scratch. Given that the white house previously shared AI generated videos of Trump putting a flag on Greenland or dropping feces on protestors, I assumed it was a from-scratch generated image to show something 'aspirational', rather than using AI to edit an existing arrest image.
I mean agree to disagree I guess. If the government was modifying photos to make seemingly innocuous changes to the weather I would have a lot of questions as to why and would indeed hope that someone would report on it.
We're well past the point where (and it's ever growing) evidence of Trumpism's tyranny and cruelty will sway anyone, I think. As depressing as it is, a large swathe of people just do not and cannot care. I remain shocked that the March CECOT deportations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2025_American_deportatio...) is largely untalked about now. Yes, many months have passed, but the blatant human rights violations involved remain truly shocking to me.
There was, I believe, a hairdresser rounded up by ICE and sent to CECOT with images/video of his head getting shaved and audio of him crying for his mother. I think about him all the time, and wonder what happened to him because it's so horrific. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would survive a situation like that, and yet nothing on his status, or his family, has noticably trickled out as information in the last nine or 10 months. My short little comment here will do nothing to encompass the context of the situation, but to have this humiliating experience documented and highlighted only to have it disappear so quickly and easily it's downright depressing.
My lord, the absolute irony in a large subset of Americans believing the government was over-reaching only to find themselves supporting the government quite literally re-writing history.
Distract from the pedophile issue with memes while grifting billions from the US.
Trump did not have enough pay the money from his rape case. Now a year later through bribes and making Americans poorer with tariffs he personally has earned over a billion dollars. Greenland conquering gave him a couple extra weeks to break the law and only release the 1 percent of photos from the Epstein files that had Clinton in them.
"The government... the American government - they're sneaky, they're very deceitful, they're liars, they're cheats, they're rip-offs. I mean, the American government is one-- is one systematic government that... that nobody can trust. I don't trust them myself"
It sheds plenty of light. They're pro-deepfakes. The government literally uses deepfakes to make themselves look more 'powerful', if that's the right word.
... to fabricate emotional messages. They would happily reach for any picture showing something that could resemble a crime and put a crying "3 years old rape victim" next to it. This is what their base is conditioned on. In this case, deepfakes were likely the best option.
That is a completely illogical take: "This tells us nothing about how those who intentionally used deepfakes feel about intentionally using deepfakes".
This reporting presents it as a debate with reasoning on both sides, rather than a brazen act with no defence supplied. It's not good journalism to legitimise a position that didn't even attempt to legitimise itself.