White House defends sharing AI image showing arrested woman crying(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
White House defends sharing AI image showing arrested woman crying
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce9yydgmzdvt
83 comments
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."
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.
- 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.
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.
> most news sources seemingly have no counter
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.
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/us/politics/trump-fake-vi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/us/politics/trump-fake-vi...
There's something deeply _sick_ about this regime.
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.
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.
Direct link instead of live view - https://www.bbc.com/news/live/ce9yydgmzdvt?post=asset%3Aaec7...
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.
What should I expect from the same administration that also altered the (tiny fraction of) Epstein files before releasing them.
The memes will continue until the torture is more widely tolerated.
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.
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?
The policy goal is "fuck you, liberals." That's the whole of it. The goal is to hurt people.
It is a politics of meanness.
It is a politics of meanness.
> why should you average normie trust any image that comes out from the White House?
or trust that whatever is released by the DOJ on the Epstein files is genuine
or trust that whatever is released by the DOJ on the Epstein files is genuine
> 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.
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.
Was it also owning the libs to throw away 80 years of US soft power I wonder.
Yes, because they view soft power as the product of progressive ideology and Democratic party corruption. They want the big stick and nothing more.
nah that's Russian and Saudi money
In that one of the animating ideas behind the Republican party for the last 80 years has been to undo everything that Roosevelt built, yes.
Roosevelt, right up there with Hitler... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk
> 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".
This part is literally what the vote was about.
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".
This part is literally what the vote was about.
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'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.
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 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
> 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
Those who can do; those that can't meme and make fake images.
The cynical part of me thinks it’s because she wasn’t crying in real life.
She didn't appear sufficiently "owned" and the police didn't appear sufficiently cruel.
Why don't more people feel insulted when lied to?
Why don't more people feel insulted when lied to?
When reality doesn't convey your message, change reality.
I believe that it is under discussed just how much AI has become the aesthetic of modern fascism.
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?
"politics."
"we only want curious conversation here."
"if it would be covered on tv it's probably off topic."
You know the drill.
"we only want curious conversation here."
"if it would be covered on tv it's probably off topic."
You know the drill.
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.
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.
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.
Two things, I think:
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.
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.
Both are lies to push a political viewpoint.
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.
OK, in your head. That's a problem with your assumptions.
The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt.
The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt.
> The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt.
Your example shows two things that are obviously different from a moral standpoint. The first would not be news and the second would.
Your example shows two things that are obviously different from a moral standpoint. The first would not be news and the second would.
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.
I think it's this guy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/28/cecot-el-sal...
Released and back with family in Venez.
Released and back with family in Venez.
[deleted]
> a church service in Minnesota last Sunday, where a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement official is a pastor.
Wait, what?
Wait, what?
American Christianity is a deeply twisted heresy that worships the Demiurge.
I assume he really mostly likes the cruxifixction bit of the story.
The KKK was deeply evangelical Christian.
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.
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.
It's propaganda, plain and simple.
"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"
"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"
Yes, spreading FUD, basically.
For everyone involved or resposible about this kind of thing, this sheds no light whatsoever on their position when it comes to deepfakes.
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".
You mean any authorities who might be expected to protect the public against deepfakes might not really be working 100% in favor of the public?
Say it isn't so . . .
Say it isn't so . . .
it absolutely does. their position is "deepfakes are OK so long as we're the ones doing it"
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.