Comments on: WashTimes Editor Solomon Regrets Foul-Up Over Pic Of Obama’s Daughters

By: affiliatemarketingonlinepromotiongirl

affiliatemarketingonlinepromotiongirl — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:06:17 +0000

I usually don

By: Girls Gone Wild

Girls Gone Wild — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:42:57 +0000

I thought that you would have a bit more feedback posted but anyway, great blog.

By: Hot Blondes Videos

Hot Blondes Videos — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:19:12 +0000

Finally, the answers that I was looking for! Cheers mate.

By: Tim L.

Tim L. — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:19:22 +0000

Do you do all your own writing? Or do you outsource some of it? I’m looking for some similar content for my blog! These are great posts!

By: ibc

ibc — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:52:08 +0000

Given that Solomon was a disingenuous sack of **** when he worked for the AP, and when he worked for the Post, it’s hard to see why he’d stop being a disingenuous sack of **** as editor of the Washington Times.

By: me

me — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:54:04 +0000

Wanta bet the paper already has their obituaries written, too?
I’d like to see exactly what “key words” were on those images.

Yeah, that’s common enough practice.
But these people pray for trouble for the Obamas every night.

By: ZachPruckowski

ZachPruckowski — Fri, 15 May 2009 01:54:56 +0000

In regards to the caption, you’d almost certainly store the picture in your database with a basic caption or at least details of who is in the picture and the copyright info. An automated caption would have basically the first half of the caption. A computer could write “Malia Obama (7) and Sasha Obama (10) in Chicago; AP Photos, 2009″ automatically using a template.

It’s the second half of the caption that’s likely editor-written, and the fact that the two parts fit together is what’s suspicious. The mention of the private school likely isn’t a detail recorded with a photo of them against a Secret Service van, and thus is likely editor-added. Therefore, the caption writer must have been aware that the photo was of Malia and Sasha.

By: David Chisholm

David Chisholm — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:56:04 +0000

Well, heck. For some people they all look the same doncha know!

By: LWN

LWN — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:17:15 +0000

These bright adorable little girls used as pawns? Does this surprise any one?

I think not, in light of Liz (Evil Monster’s daughter) Cheney accusing our president of “siding with terrorists” last week.

By: paul

paul — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:16:06 +0000

What the rest said. First, no reputable web site relies entirely on software to select photos (not even the BBC which has been hit by variants of this problem on several occasions). Second, the caption blows the explanation out of the water.

You would think at least the the Washington Times would have a firing editor who could be blamed for screwups like this.

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:52:47 +0000

Paired with the caption, it’s pretty clear what the Washington Times was saying: “Obama’s kids went to a nice safe private school while other children were being gunned down, which makes Obama responsible for the deaths of those children.” It’s a pretty common why-don’t-you-rich-lefties-send-your-kids-to-public-schools smear. But adding the picture gave it that extra flavor of assholishness.

By: kgb999

kgb999 — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:29:15 +0000

This begs the question: WTF is the editor’s job if not to look at the pages between when they are created and when they are published?

By: Cheryll from Kansas

Cheryll from Kansas — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:04:46 +0000

All I CAN SAY IS “GOD IS WATCHING YOU” YOU WILL BE JUDGED!

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:59:10 +0000

I don’t see how automated captions is really possible. If a computer could generate original copy, what would be the point of employing writers?

By: mike from Arlington

mike from Arlington — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:36:18 +0000

What Joe said. The picture was captioned with the shootings. It blows the excuse out of the water. Someone put that caption into that photo unless they also have that automated.