Dupree - Fairley Independent Picture

[noway]

you can tell its a picture taken in an interview. Also you can notice how the Fairley picture looks taped and scanned. On the other filer that Hattiesburg First sent out Fairley is holding a hankerchief so the picture to me looks like it was taken at his church. (If you notice on sunday morning he is always holding the white hanky) So did the Independent go to Mt Carmel and take that picture? :smt102

[aaron]

I thought I was coming in here for a picture, where is it?

[reality]

lol He's having difficulties

[noway]

im trying this darn computer stuff....:smt086 :smt022

[aaron]

Hey noway :)

[noway]

i give up

[Kimberly]

awwww Its ok Noway I know how you feel, I can't even post a link (not that I use them anyway heehee)

[aaron]

ok, I just recovered the picture that noway sent. I have to say, this is pretty funny.

[Tully Mars]

The picture looks doctored in my opinion. Not a bad photoshop job but anyone who has done that type of work would be able to tell that the photo is doctored. Unfortunatly, the average person probably wouldn't know the difference.

[Tully Mars]

If you look closely you will notice that the Mayor is sitting. Those of you who have been in his office know that he has a small round table slightly to the right as you enter his office that he likes to sit at for informal meetings & conferences. It appears that he is sitting at that table. You can see the arm of his chair just under his left arm.

Now Fairly appears to be in a standing position but that can't be right because the picture has them both at relatively the same height. He really can't be sitting because of how close he is to the Mayor. There would literally be no room for his legs. The more you look at the picture the more of an obvious fake it is. The real question is...who dunnit?:smt102

[Omerto]

. . . He really can't be sitting because of how close he is to the Mayor. . .:smt102

Tully:

I know you didn't mean it, but I think you captured the intent of the picture with this line!!!!!

I don't care who did it; I understand why the DuPree/Fairley supporters wouldn't like it. But, if you do find out who did it, tell them I'd like a picture of me with one of the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.

[reality]

LOL I agree Omerto... I don't care who did it either. It's just the DuPree/Fairley supporters who are so concerned.

[Tully Mars]

Tully:

I know you didn't mean it, but I think you captured the intent of the picture with this line!!!!!

I don't care who did it; I understand why the DuPree/Fairley supporters wouldn't like it. But, if you do find out who did it, tell them I'd like a picture of me with one of the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.

:smt118 I meant proximity as in distance, not relationally. Pun not intended but funny nonetheless.:smt044

[ynotme297]

noway has a flier. i looked at it. even to an untrained eye like mine, you can tell it`s fake. noway said he would take $50,000.00 for it, or a date with a really hot chick.:smt038

[reality]

noway has a flier. i looked at it. even to an untrained eye like mine, you can tell it`s fake. noway said he would take $50,000.00 for it, or a date with a really hot chick.:smt038

Hahahaha That's not a joke either! :-D

[aaron]

It looks really doctored to me. If you wanted to do something like this, you could make it look much more real than this.

[Monkey]

It looks very amateurish which makes me think the paper didn't do it.

[Sir Mickey Mouse]

I agree totally... any descent printer one buys comes with software that can do that kind of stuff. My brother and I were playing around one day and put our dog walking down the runway at Miss America. Stupid, I know, but we were bored.

[aaron]

It looks very amateurish which makes me think the paper didn't do it.

My understanding was that no one thought the paper did it, but may have sold the picture to do it. If they didn't sell it to them, then why no backlash from using an Indy picture? That was the original complaint I think.

[Tully Mars]

I am quite certain that the Independent did not create that image, I can't even imagine what their motivation would be. My guess is that someone from Hattiesburg First got their hands on the picture and did a bit of amateurish doctoring in an attempt to over exagerate a point...simple as that. I find is somewhat amusing that it has garnered so much attention here.

I can recall several occasions where images were enhanced, modified, or edited to emphasize or sway a certain point of view (especially with politicians as the target)

[lamarrebel]

I saw the flyer last night for the first time as well. It is clear to me that the picture of the Mayor in question did appear in the Independent (April 28 issue). It is pretty apparent that the picture was doctored. The Mayor in the actualy picture appears to be seated, and Rev. Fairley would literally have to be on his knees for this to be an authentic photograph of the two.

With the high digital technology out there, anyone could have scanned the DuPree picture from the Independent got the picture of Rev. Fairley and had their fun. I see no reason to believe that Bob or any of his employees gave this picture to Hattiesburg First, and thus, the Mayor and Ms. Massengile need to call off their vendetta against the Independent.

[aaron]

My question is, how upset would HA be if you scanned a picture of theirs and used it in an advertisement?

[Tully Mars]

My question is, how upset would HA be if you scanned a picture of theirs and used it in an advertisement?

I guess that is the other part of the equation. Why isn't the Independent raising a huge stink about someone using one of their photos (their property essentially) for political motives?

[3rdflooremployee]

OK. Some of you got it, some of you are wayyyyy off, and others just don’t care (right, reality?). Aaron, you hit the nail on the head. I never said the Indy produced the flyer. Nathan Jordan already admitted to this. I simply said that the picture which appeared on the flyer was taken by the Indy photographer during the Mayor’s interview with Bob Pittman. This photo did not appear in the published interview, so my question is how did Hattiesburg First get a picture that was in possession of the Independent?



Many of you have commented as to what an honest, fair, strait-shooting guy Bob Pittman is. I don’t know him, so I can’t speak to whether he is or not. But based on what you all have told me, I am just surprised that he has not made a fuss about the Hattiesburg First group getting a hold of one of his pictures. And even greater than this, I am shocked that he has not even called the Mayor to offer an explanation... or to simply explain that there is no explanation.



And one other thing: Reality, the DuPree/Fairley supporters I talked to during the election were initially upset about the document; but when people who were supporting the other candidate began to express dismay with the photo, their fears began to calm. At the end of the day, I think most people (DuPree and Rowell supporters) agreed on two things (1) that the document was pretty tasteless, and (2) the document damaged Mrs. Rowell’s reputation and her campaign.



Omerto, you’re right. Technology is amazing! Given the correct tools and apparatus technology can help us do almost anything we want to do.

[3rdflooremployee]

Hubbarrister:

The Mayor has no vendetta against the Independent. Read my post in the Council Meeting forum (page 3, I think).

[lamarrebel]

apparently, Ms. Massengile does though, and as his press secretary or whatever her title is, he is showing a vendetta via association or silence by allowing her antics to go on unfettered. She represents the Mayor's office by her actions, plain and simple.

The Independent published photos from that intereview in at least 3 issues, the initial interview and two later issues (one issue the picture was somewhat cropped).

[HubCitySlicker]

Are you people bored? So, someone, anyone with half a brain, scanned an pic from the Independent, scanned a pic of Fairly, used Photshop to edit, and the unscrupulous Chain Gang used it in a flyer. Can someone explain why that makes Bob Pittman responsible?

[HubCitySlicker]

Many of you have commented as to what an honest, fair, strait-shooting guy Bob Pittman is. I don’t know him, so I can’t speak to whether he is or not. But based on what you all have told me, I am just surprised that he has not made a fuss about the Hattiesburg First group getting a hold of one of his pictures. And even greater than this, I am shocked that he has not even called the Mayor to offer an explanation... or to simply explain that there is no explanation.



[size=3][font=Times New Roman]And one other thing: Reality, the DuPree/Fairley supporters I talked to during the election were initially upset about the document; but when people who were supporting the other candidate began to express dismay with the photo, their fears began to calm. At the end of the day, I think most people (DuPree and Rowell supporters) agreed on two things (1) that the document was pretty tasteless, and (2) the document damaged Mrs. Rowell’s reputation and her campaign.

First, if the pic appear in the newspaper, several thousand people "got a hold" of it. Is Pittman to shut down his business and investigate which of his thousands of patrons may have copied the pic?

Secondly....Ya mean Bobby Chain may have actually damaged Betsy Wetsy's chances of being elected? Naw...you don't mean it! WAKE UP!! Bobby Chain has been politically ignorant for decades. Give him enough rope and he can hang ANY candidate (so long as it is the candidate he suppoerts!) He lures the crooked candidates in with money, then does a terrible job of hiding the source of the money. Most reasonable people in H'burg KNOW to oppose his candidates. They had enough of him at City Hall years ago.

[3rdflooremployee]

Hubbarrister:

The Mayor is not being silent on the issue. Did you read my post? He contacted the reporters to set up a meeting with them! Regardless, of what I tell you, you are never satisfied. I have come to realize this: Many of you on this site can’t handle the truth. Yes, hubcityslicker….I am bored!



Furthermore, hubbarrister, it’s obvious that relationship between the Mayor/Ms. Massengill/the Independent is really important to you. How ‘bout you contact the said parties and schedule a meeting with them all together. Perhaps you can work out a triangulated relationship that fits your fancy.

[lamarrebel]

I voted for Betsy on June 7th, but I have to agree in part. I'm not a Bobby Chain fan and wouldn't ask for his support if it cost me the Governorship (not that I'm running).

[HubCitySlicker]

I rest my case, Your Honor! Chain turned many Rowell supporters against her (Thank Goodness!) No, Thank YOU, Bobby!

[HubCitySlicker]

And Hub, now I'm confused over which Hub City Attorney you are. Thought I had an idea, but not if you voted for Betsy. Back to square one on my speculation about your identity.

[aaron]

The Independent doesn't have to investigate thousands of anything. They have a political advertisement using a picture an Independent employee took and the name of that PAC. I'm just wondering how legal that is. It's one thing if it's personal use, but use of private property without express permission in an public advertisement?

[ynotme297]

i guess bob pittman is not to concerned about this whole thing.

[Omerto]

What amazes me is that the DuPree/Fairley supporters are more upset with THE PICTURE than they are about THE ALLEGATIONS that appeared next to the picture.

Why don't we get a denial of all the serious allegations Hattiesburg First made on the back side of the mailer instead of outrage over the picture that accompanied it?

Did the Mayor or Rev. Fairley ever acknowledge whether any of the allegations are true or not? All I've heard (and that's from the Mayor's supporters on this site) is that the mailer was considered to be trash and treated accordingly, but then they have this outrage over the PICTURE????

I don't get it.

[Monkey]

I agree Omerto. The DuPree supporters want to quickly point fingers and get to the bottom of the picture thing while not touching anything else. If there were some wrongdoing on the part of the Indy then has the mayor taken any action against the paper? Maybe 3rd floor can answer since she seems to know what all goes on there.
:confused:

[HubCitySlicker]

hard to believe, but i actually agree with smitty on this one.:smt022

Please refrain from making this a habit! LOL I have a reputation to uphold, you know.

[HubCitySlicker]

The Independent doesn't have to investigate thousands of anything. They have a political advertisement using a picture an Independent employee took and the name of that PAC. I'm just wondering how legal that is. It's one thing if it's personal use, but use of private property without express permission in an public advertisement?

The picture is in the public domain once it is published. Sure, credit should be given to the copyright holder, but who would Bob Pittman sue...Nathan Jordan?

[Tully Mars]

The picture is in the public domain once it is published. Sure, credit should be given to the copyright holder, but who would Bob Pittman sue...Nathan Jordan?

Question...If the picture was scanned from the paper itself it would be public domain but if the original was used to make the photoshopped version would it still be considered public domain?

[wilebill]

Let me clear up a few points, or maybe muddy it up a little more, depending on how you look at it. :confused:

First off, just because a picture is published doesn't put it in the public domain. There are copyright laws whether it has the (C) symbol on it or not. Publishing something doesn't change the copyrights on it.

A picture printed in a newspaper is of a relatively low resolution, and is basically printed with a bunch of dots. Look at one through a magnifying glass. I haven't seen the original flyer but I would have thought it would be a glossy with a relatively good look. It would be next to impossible to create a good-looking flyer with a scanned photo from a newpaper and then merge it with another (photo? of Fairley) and get a decent looking composite image. To get the best image you would need 2 photos of relatively similar resolution.

Next, was the photographer who took the photo of Dupree in his office which was allegedly used in the flyer an employee of the paper or a subcontractor or freelancer? If an employee, then the photo belongs to the paper - if other, then the terms of the photographer's contract would determine who the photo belongs to.

[Tully Mars]

Let me clear up a few points, or maybe muddy it up a little more, depending on how you look at it. :confused:

First off, just because a picture is published doesn't put it in the public domain. There are copyright laws whether it has the (C) symbol on it or not. Publishing something doesn't change the copyrights on it.

A picture printed in a newspaper is of a relatively low resolution, and is basically printed with a bunch of dots. Look at one through a magnifying glass. I haven't seen the original flyer but I would have thought it would be a glossy with a relatively good look. It would be next to impossible to create a good-looking flyer with a scanned photo from a newpaper and then merge it with another (photo? of Fairley) and get a decent looking composite image. To get the best image you would need 2 photos of relatively similar resolution.

Next, was the photographer who took the photo of Dupree in his office which was allegedly used in the flyer an employee of the paper or a subcontractor or freelancer? If an employee, then the photo belongs to the paper - if other, then the terms of the photographer's contract would determine who the photo belongs to.

Good points all. I have tried scanning newspapers images and they come out exactly as you have described. Thanks for clarifying the 'public domain' issue.

[Monkey]

Again, my question is this:
If DuPree and his supporters believe that the Indy sold the picture to the organization, has he taken any action? 3rd floor, you seem to know what's going on -- has the mayor contacted the paper about the picture? If so -- when? and if not -- why? HubCityGirl and others were absolutely convinced that this picture had been altered, and I was just curious what the mayor has done about it Obviously if the picture is doctored -- which it DOES appear to be -- what's our Mr. JLD done about it?
:smt102 :smt102 :confused:

[noway]

Let me clear up a few points, or maybe muddy it up a little more, depending on how you look at it. :confused:

First off, just because a picture is published doesn't put it in the public domain. There are copyright laws whether it has the (C) symbol on it or not. Publishing something doesn't change the copyrights on it.

A picture printed in a newspaper is of a relatively low resolution, and is basically printed with a bunch of dots. Look at one through a magnifying glass. I haven't seen the original flyer but I would have thought it would be a glossy with a relatively good look. It would be next to impossible to create a good-looking flyer with a scanned photo from a newpaper and then merge it with another (photo? of Fairley) and get a decent looking composite image. To get the best image you would need 2 photos of relatively similar resolution.

Next, was the photographer who took the photo of Dupree in his office which was allegedly used in the flyer an employee of the paper or a subcontractor or freelancer? If an employee, then the photo belongs to the paper - if other, then the terms of the photographer's contract would determine who the photo belongs to.

wilebill when attempting to scan the picture from the flyer it had a bunch of dots on it. So with some help, we or should I say the person helping me had to click on abunch of things to get a clearer picture. So does that sound like it was scanned from a newspaper orginaly?
:smt102

[wilebill]

Coulda been, I was assuming that it probably wasn't, plus all the allegations being made that it came straight from the Indy.

If that's the case, then it very well could have been scanned from the newspaper. You can take a newspaper scan, clean it up and make it look decent, but it takes a lot of work. Also, if the final image is smaller than the original image, that makes it a little easier to get better quality.

[HubCitySlicker]

Coulda been, I was assuming that it probably wasn't, plus all the allegations being made that it came straight from the Indy.

If that's the case, then it very well could have been scanned from the newspaper. You can take a newspaper scan, clean it up and make it look decent, but it takes a lot of work. Also, if the final image is smaller than the original image, that makes it a little easier to get better quality.

The ALLEGATIONS that it came straight from the INDY are ALLEGATIONS. That "proves" nothing. ALL pictures are made of dots. The higher the resolution the smaller the dots. As Noway noted, the clarity can be improved digitally.

[wilebill]

ALL pictures are made of dots. The higher the resolution the smaller the dots. As Noway noted, the clarity can be improved digitally.

But newspaper printed "dots" are much different from the pixel dots that comprise digital photos or scans. Newspaper dots are the actual ink dots and are printed at an angle (I forget the terminology used to define the angle and dot density at the moment) They are much further apart than pixels. Pixels butt up against each other, newspaper dots do not. There is a definite difference, and editing the two different formats is not the same. I know, I've worked with newspaper scans before. There are filters that can be used in Photoshop and other image editing software, but it generally does not yield clear results - it has to interpolate the missing info between the dots. To get the best results you have to manually do a bunch of editing and that's very time consuming.

Since I haven't seen the original flyer I can't say what it was made from, but if I were to see it I could tell you.

My point being that if someone took a scan of the newpaper photo they would have had to spend a great deal of time to get a good-looking image for a glossy flyer. I'm not saying that someone didn't do that, only that they would have spent a pretty good sum of money for image editing. If they had used the original photograph it is almost a no-brainer to edit that to get good results.

All of this is specualtion on my part since I havent' seen the flyer. Just pointing out that it's not a simple matter of scanning a photo from the newspaper, dropping in another image, and printing it out.

[3rdflooremployee]

Monkey,

I didn’t allege that the Indy sold the picture to Hattiesburg First. I merely reported that the picture which appeared in the Hattiesburg First ad was a picture taken by an Indy photographer during an interview Bob Pittman had with Mayor DuPree. Whether the picture was sold, given or stolen, I do not know for sure. The only things I do know for sure are when/where/who took the picture, and somehow Hattiesburg First got a hold of one of the pictures (again, this picture did not appear I the article which contained the interview).



To your other question… I didn’t think Mayor DuPree had contacted the paper about the picture, but I was not sure. And to be honest, after you posed the question to me, I begin to wonder why he had not. So, I asked him. Here is a synopsis of what he told me: No, he has not taken any action against the Independent, Hattiesburg First, or any one affiliated with either organization. He told me that he prays and seeks guidance from the Lord before making decisions. He prayed about it, but he was not lead to address the issue. Rather, he was focusing his entire energy on trying to move the city forward. So, I guess the answer this: Our Mr. JLD has not done anything about it (except for pray); and I don’t expect he will

[2002usmgrad]

The only things I do know for sure are when/where/who took the picture, and somehow Hattiesburg First got a hold of one of the pictures (again, this picture did not appear I the article which contained the interview).


Actually, the picture did appear on the front page of the paper with the interview in it.

[2002usmgrad]

To your other question… I didn’t think Mayor DuPree had contacted the paper about the picture, but I was not sure. And to be honest, after you posed the question to me, I begin to wonder why he had not. So, I asked him. Here is a synopsis of what he told me: No, he has not taken any action against the Independent, Hattiesburg First, or any one affiliated with either organization. He told me that he prays and seeks guidance from the Lord before making decisions. He prayed about it, but he was not lead to address the issue. Rather, he was focusing his entire energy on trying to move the city forward. So, I guess the answer this: Our Mr. JLD has not done anything about it (except for pray); and I don’t expect he will

Sorry for this second post. I just noticed what you wrote 3rdfloor. It was in such tiny type that I missed it. So what you're saying is that they mayor isn't too concerned about the picture and wants to move on, great. My question is if he's not concerned and you're such a loyal follower, why are you so upset about this picture, and wouldn't you want the city to move on? My other request is do you know how Ms. Massingel feels about this picture. I'm sure you can go down the hall and talk with her sometime today to find out. If she isn't, why don't you ask her then why she dislikes The Independent so much. It seems to me that if Mr. DuPree wants to move on he would imbrace The Independent and instruct Ms. Massingel to do so as well, since the paper does have a large conservative base, the ones he is trying to bring together with his supporters.

[itzme]

What the heck is the big deal about that dang picture? He's a politician . . . his picture is gonna get taken.. I got that flyer and it looks like all the other pictures the man takes. 3rd floor you seem to have such admiration for the Mayor, maybe you can contact the Independent and they can get you a POSTER size for your wall. GET OVER THE PICTURE. The argument is VERY old!

[Omerto]

I agree. If it had happened to me, I'd be far more upset about what was said on the back of the flyer than the danged picture! That was far more "damaging" to the Mayor and Reverend Fairley than how a picture was reproduced. Unless I'm missing something.

[King Kong]

Sorry for this second post. I just noticed what you wrote 3rdfloor. It was in such tiny type that I missed it. So what you're saying is that they mayor isn't too concerned about the picture and wants to move on, great. My question is if he's not concerned and you're such a loyal follower, why are you so upset about this picture, and wouldn't you want the city to move on? My other request is do you know how Ms. Massingel feels about this picture. I'm sure you can go down the hall and talk with her sometime today to find out. If she isn't, why don't you ask her then why she dislikes The Independent so much. It seems to me that if Mr. DuPree wants to move on he would imbrace The Independent and instruct Ms. Massingel to do so as well, since the paper does have a large conservative base, the ones he is trying to bring together with his supporters.

I was thinking the same thing.

[3rdflooremployee]

2002usmgrad and King Kong:

Yes, I am saying the mayor isn't concerned about the picture and wants to move on; and after my conversation with him, I think it is best we move on as well. USMgrad, to your statement “It seems to me that if Mr. DuPree wants to move on he would embrace The Independent and instruct Ms. Massingel to do so as well, since the paper does have a large conservative base, the ones he is trying to bring together with his supporters,” I’ll repeat what I have said (at least twice) before. Mr. DuPree has made contact with a reporter from the Independent. From what I have been told, they will meet. Perhaps after their meeting they will all embrace each other (Ms. Massingel included).



You know, the only reason I began posting on this site in the beginning is because I was reading so much information that was simply untrue. I thought I could be a voice to present first-hand, factual information. Not just stuff I “heard” from someone. I have come to realize that many people do not want to know the truth. But hopefully, I have encouraged some of you to think.

[2002usmgrad]

Well, I hope they do meet. That would be so nice. Group hug everybody.

[3rdflooremployee]

My arms are extended.

I can finally respond to a message with a smile on my face....thanks!

[2002usmgrad]

Come on, rub the bald head, you know you want to. :grin:

[noway]

Sorry folkes but I had to post in this thread and make it back active. The Independent's front page had a Doctored picture on the front. You can see the police department & city hall with the headline "SHROUD OF SECRECY" So you have two pictures scanned and "Illustrated" kinda like the fairley-dupree picture.

[nonnegotiable]

Pretty neat on how they did the picture of both with the cloud!

[noway]

Pretty neat on how they did the picture of both with the cloud!
Neat picture... I still cant figure out why city officals will not try and defend themselves or talk to the independent.

[nonnegotiable]

They are thinking that the first rooster to crow catches the early worm they are that smart in thinking that if they start giving the citizens what they want they will be broken down and proven that they are in the wrong

[nonnegotiable]

I saw the Independent picture too. It was pretty cool and I loved the headline "shroud of secrecy." That got my attention almost more than the photo.
Don't you think Dupree and Wynn don't want to talk to the Independent because of fear of being found out? If this "shroud of secrecy" is maintained by them, they have a better chance keeping all the rest of us in the dark - :confused: which is where they want us!
I Agree

[bartspoon]

smitty I dont think you have to be conserned about your reputation as a hatchet man "hack" lawyer being in any way threatened. And we all remember after LJD was beaten by Betsy, how hard you worked to make sure dupree would be elected. Well you got your wish. Im sure you made 3rdfloor and all the other dupree people happy. Don't you have another bogus lawsuit to file. You and chain are birds of a feather. You are one of the reasons we are in the fix we find ourselves in now. You helped poison our election process and take the focus off the real issues and the truth. How you can feel good about that amazes me. If it wasnt for people like you our town would be on the road to recovery right now. and we would all be talking about better things.

[bartspoon]

Please refrain from making this a habit! LOL I have a reputation to uphold, you know.
This pale face was joking about how your agreeing with him might hurt his rep. I tried not to reply, but the memory of how he helped muddy up the election waters, and how much I know you like clean cool running fresh mountain streams, got the better of me.

And as far as smitty being right about something. Even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then.

[lamarrebel]

And Hub, now I'm confused over which Hub City Attorney you are. Thought I had an idea, but not if you voted for Betsy. Back to square one on my speculation about your identity.

I'm a loyal Republican, first and foremost, and thought LJD, Betsy, or Senne would be an improvement over DuPree. I know you and your father have done a lot for the GOP over the years and I think I've even helped put signs up on some of your property before (Haley, Amy signs in '03) . I understood your anger over the council zoning decision and Betsy's part in it, but I simply did not consider it an important enough issue to me personally to do anything to help keep the Fairley/DuPree/Wynn tandem in power.