The Time Magazine 02-JUL-2018 issue does not show a child separated from her mother.
I know, right? The whole magazine title is a lie. I mean, the articles aren’t really about time, are they? I read the entire issue, and there’s not one article about clocks. It’s a goddamn outrage, it is.
Time also never did say that that kid was separated from her mother.
The caption from Getty images: A two-year-old Honduran asylum seeker cries as her mother is searched and detained near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. (Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)
More from Snopes:
In essence, the right wing Daily Wire just hoodwinked a lot of their readers, why I do expect that their readers will not demand better from that source?
Wait, that is your issue with the cover? What about the fact that she isn’t actually in some sort of big red room with Trump? I bet all the people who bought the magazine wondering why would trump be taking pictures alongside crying children in a red room are way more outraged!
Oh, right! Next you’ll tell me Donald Trump wasn’t standing there looking down at her either. What do you take me for?
ETA: damn, just a little too slow.
I have seen that picture all over the place and I never thought she was separated from her mom. I just saw her as the face of the cruelty that is happening at the southern border. In fact I saw her as one of the “lucky” ones because she was still with her mother.
The child is on the cover with Donald Trump…so…are you saying Trump is her mother?
He is saying that the child has never been separated from his mom.
Also, there is a little girl on the cover. She wasn’t separated from her mother either.
It’s so much easier to debunk the lies when you made the lie up yourself.
This is just my opinion, but I think it is obvious that the picture is implying that Trump is presiding over a child being separated from her family. And further (IMHO), it is symptomatic of the fact that the media has decided that Trump is so vile a person that they are justified in making up whatever lies about him that they care to perpetrate.
Just my humble opinion.
The fucker put children in concentration camps.
That doesn’t make him suited for a vile portrayal. That makes him vile.
Trump has presided over children being removed from their families so you got it right in one guess. The photo is not intended to be taken as an actual physical moment in time any more than this cover is supposed to mean “Trump’s White House office was flooded” or this cover is supposed to factually represent that an Obama-Clinton hybrid monster is stalking the streets of Washington. Sometimes people have to use their thinkin’ parts to understand an artistic statement.
Manafort wasn’t convicted of five counts of manslaughter the way ABC said he was, either, but let’s not quibble.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a photo montage trying to make a point. I’d have said that most people would straight up assume that the kid came from some random stock photo and wasn’t even a child of immigrants at all.
There is plenty of things to say about media manipulation. You can argue that plenty of children cried under Obama, only no liberal reporter was trying to spin a story then, for instance. But trying to gotcha a Photoshop composition is weird. We’re talking about an image that’s practically an editorial cartoon.
If the best lie you can come up with is one that requires deliberately interpreting an image a certain way, then you’re basically saying that the majority is true.
The Media doesn’t lie about Trump. Trump claims they lie to try and ignore the facts. The fact that he’s had to stoop to that level should tell you that the information is true. If something is a lie, then you refute it, not just call it a lie and move on.
I think the WAPO tally for Trump lies and truth stretching is now up to about 3,300 since he took office. I can forgive some editorial license for a magazine cover.
See that’s the difference between you and me. You see that illustration and think it’s showing the president of the United States literally standing in front of a child and ordering her internment. Me, I think it’s meant to illustrate his long-held fantasy of being the villain in a remake of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Thanks for all the chuckles! After reading all the tortured liberal logic in this thread, I won’t have to watch Olympic gymnastics next time around!
As rather widely reported, Time issued a correction which states:
Moreover, according to the Washington Post report, the mother had been patted down for about two minutes, after which the mother "immediately picked up her daughter, who then stopped crying.
So, apparently Time did say in the original story that the girl was carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents, but that was not true. And the child was not crying when taken away with her mother by Border Patrol agents.
The obvious question then is why did Time report that she had been carried away screaming by Border Patrol agents? Who told them that? Or did they just make up something that fit their narrative?