https://vodpub2.v.news.cn/publish/20210721/XxjfyxE007098_202...
They color corrected his over saturated video, but also went ahead and removed green from the trees. Sure looks like like someone at BBC playing propaganda.
They color corrected his over saturated video, but also went ahead and removed green from the trees. Sure looks like like someone at BBC playing propaganda.
Or, maybe, it could be as simple as whoever color-corrected the over-saturation just did a shitty job.
Still, ideally everyone in the modern era should be aware of basic techniques to manipulate the look and feel of photos and videos - from color correction and filters to lighting and camera angles.
I was expecting something a bit more blatant, like putting Corbyn on a Kremlin background https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainmen...
Personally the UK government influence on the BBC matters a lot more.
"Henry, change that tree to grey, it'll change hearts and minds!"
More likely is that it was either a mistake, a joke, an individual actor doing something they shouldn't.
If it were an effort of 'systematic propaganda' then it would be consistent, you'd be able to find a number of such images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)#Child_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Harris#Operation_Yewtree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Lee_Travis#Conviction_for...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Clifford#Indecent_assault_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter#Sex_offences
Someone individually deciding to do it is one thing, institution with extensive ethical oversight letting it happen is another.
Covering up for pedophiles, if that's the case, is actual propaganda, which probably takes some skill.
Changing the colour of one image is obviously not propaganda, is the point.