Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

[B2G]

Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

**************************************

How much of what we see/read can we accept unquestionily as fact? From either side or any source? I wonder how often this really happens.

[mmonk]

1. Take everything from most media sources with a grain of salt.

Especially these days.

[Kagemusha]

2. Let me guess, the dead kids were cloned images too.

Forget the reporters who counted bodies on the scene. The image is fake, so the atrocity must be fake, too.

Sad.

[B2G]

3. I'm certainly not suggesting that

It's just that with the technology available today to edit photos, it's a real concern in my mind. I think the media has a responsibility to ensure what they're printing is legitimate. The stakes are too high to allow themselves to be used as a tool for propaganda.

[insane_cratic_gal]

89. Have you been listening to Limbaugh?

Also note it's too Late they are ALREADY a tool for propaganda and have been lap dogs to this administration,

I look at those two photos and I still see the same amount of devastation, one has darker smoke then the other.

Being a hobbyist photographer, even with my little skill, I certainly don't make foolish newbie mistakes with the cloning tool in photoshop I hardly suspect a pro is going to.

this smells like bullshit to me.

If someone did manipulate it, probably to add interest, they had no idea what they were doing.

Speaking of photo manipulation.. have you seen the covers of some of the top women's magazines lately? Airbrushed and shopped

So have you? been listening to Limbaugh? You stated almost verbatim what he did.. These photographers are obviously willing to participate in propaganda,'' Limbaugh said

[cushla_machree]

130. thats the whole point of media today

not to report, to manipulate. Its sad because staging and editing photos like this gives people the impression that horrible things are NOT happening. Its like fox news, bush is always the victim from the evil liberal media. Now Israel is unfairly being targeting by the international press! Making fake photos...the press is manipulated to suit their purposes.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzie]

71. Maybe it is like the DOD and the 'same vase' thing?

Now dead children in place of a vase? Give us all a brake. Also Hezbollah is into every thing in that country. Their military part is just a part of the group. They build schools, hospitals and homes. I am willing to say they were right there to dig out the people. I do not think this is a group that is just into terrorism. I also believe it is a history of that part of the world that tribes have their own armies. We can not look at it the same as the West. Not that I am really happy with such people as CustersBattle or Blackwater. That also looks like a private army to me.

[midnight]

107. We deem any group that goes against Halliburton's wishes

as terrorists. Black water gets a pass because they are hired by Halliburton-their private army. I haven't heard of the group Custersbattle. Who owns them?

[izzie]

190. By two guys with those name. I bet both ex-army big wigs

These old army guys seem to be deep into making money as soon as they get out. Like the guys who ran the Iran-Contra thing. Guess none of these guys ever spent anytime at the Constitutions Corner at West Point but were reading Adam Smith in place of it.

[dogday]

4. It amazes me what people take issue with

Oh my the picture is fake!!!! What about the real deaths occurring.. Where is the outrage in that????

[ClassWarrior]

10. It amazes me that some people...

...are too busy jerking their spiteful knees to hear what someone else is saying, and have to put words in the other person's mouth to justify their hate.

NGU.

[dogday]

15. What are you talking about? nt

[ClassWarrior]

23. So because there are deaths, we can't hold the media accountable??

And because the OP holds the media accountable, he/she doesn't give a damn about the deaths??

I am so sick of the nasty shit that this Israel/Arab situation brings out in people.

NGU.

[dogday]

33. Sometimes one can be quick to judge and in this case you are

I see two sides of this situation... Everybody loses is one side and Nobody wins is another... All I see are the dead people who get caught in the middle of those in power who make the decisions...


I am more appalled at the deaths of people occurring than the photo-shopping of a picture.... And I never said a thing about the OP, you are assuming, and I don't have to tell you what happens when you do that....

spin it like you want, the only thing I care about is the people who are dying, all the people....

[ClassWarrior]

37. You "never said a thing about the OP"?? Then who are the "people"...

...to whom you refer in #4?

:eyes:

NGU.

[dogday]

39. I was referring to the article itself

and the fuss that was being made about the picture.... Usually when one posts an article, you respond to the article, not the OP, unless of course the OP posts their opinion, then I would indeed be responding to the OP.....

[Renew Deal]

54. Maybe that's exagerated too?

Get the point. It has nothing to do with the "real deaths." This is a journalistic issue.

[dogday]

69. 1 death is too many

Spin and spin and spin away, but at the end of the day, it is the dead who pay for the sins of everyone else,including the journalist...

Don't you see, all of this means nothing when people are dying.. who cares in what amounts?

[Renew Deal]

72. So the number of lies told are irrelevant

as long as they fit your point of view?

[dogday]

83. The number of people dying on each side

is all I care about... If that is my "point of view" then I guess so....

[Renew Deal]

90. Wow

That's bold. Thanks for admitting it at least.

[dogday]

93. I don't know what is so bold about wanting

to save people's lives... Propaganda is not new and has been used in many a war... I just want it all to stop, the people are the ones who suffer here.. they are what matter's to me.. all the people...

[Renew Deal]

96. I understand that

But Reuters is not supposed to be the propoganda wing of someones government. It's supposed to be a news agency. The propoganda should be coming from Israel, Hezbollah, the US, not Reuters.

[dogday]

97. Not with this Government

Come one, we have been spoon fed crap from our own Media for a while now... I don't put anything past any of them.. Look how they cheered us on to war in Iraq....

[barb162]

146. Reuters should be unbiased in this; glad they are admitting it

[truedelphi]

101. I agree with your sentiments; However

Since it is the Ministry of Propoganda saying that it is fake, I will continue to believe in the
original photo and the origianl photographer

[malaise]

182. We know the deaths are real but

the propaganda will be non-stop since Israel is committing war crimes and their PR teams are working overtime.

[CJCRANE]

5. Seems counter-productive

the original photo is bad enough.

There's a small chance this could be a Memogate type set-up.

[oasis]

108. "Memogate" or "Rathergate" smells like it. (eom)

[DemonFighterLives]

179. I was thinking the same exact thing

This type of play worked against Rather, why not obfuscate this situation foo.
:shrug:

[ReadTomPaine]

6. Here's a quote from the article:

"Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog , which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote : "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image."

Little Green Footballs? That previous work he's done was against Dan Rather regarding the Killian documents.

[Scurrilous]

12. Littlegreenfootballs (LGF)...

...is a hate site. Last time I was over there, the website owner was cautioning his members to tone down the hate-speech because the FBI was getting complaints.


Take the littlegreenfootballs (LGF) quiz:

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/


LGF Watch:

'Keeping an eye on those rabid racists at Little Green Footballs'

http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/

[Renew Deal]

57. I had heard earlier in the week that the righties were looking at

something like this. Finally they do something useful. We should have found it first.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. LGF is a right wing site. Like FR.

:puke:

[Blue_Tires]

85. that tells me all i need to know

[truedelphi]

103. Oooh, Phew, the stench of the Ministry of Propaganda is

All over this...
Just as the concept that the bombs in the Shock and Awe campaign were smart bombs led so many AMericans to believe that that campaign had done little to kill hurt or maim Iraqi civilians, now we must believe that the Beirut photos are a lie.

Truth is the first casualty of war.

But another way you can discover the truth of Beirut is to read Robert Fiske, a fine UK reporter

[truedelphi]

105. Here's a recent URL leading to Fisk

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1214522.ece

[Webster Green]

7. That is some really crappy Photoshop editing

The clone stamp tool can be tricky. I can't believe they ever used the manipulated version of the photo. The repeating pattern is very obvious.

[Poll_Blind]

9. Yes, who is this photographer and what are their real motives? n/t

PB

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. Makes you wonder

why someone would deliberately put out an image so obviously manipulated?

I noticed the pic yesterday and thought there was something weird. One of those little, I should look at that later when I have time moments? I had a thread going from the day before about another picture with a huge explosion and so I've been looking pretty closely at these sorts of pics. It struck me as odd because it didn't look like all the other pics of explosions in Lebanon that I've seen lately.

[bperci108]

81. I would call it a pre-emptive strike.

(Which is a bad pun for the subject matter at hand, to be sure)

Like the "forged document" that documented Duhbya's AWOL escapades, the document's veracity was called into question, but the facts it contained never were. The pre-emptive strike effectively killed the story and made for a great RW echo-chamber talking point.

Put up an obviously manipulated photo of the attacks in Lebanon, and the RW Noise Machine can cry "foul!" over and over and over.

Meanwhile; the facts remain.


:tinfoilhat:...or maybe not.

[ContraBass Black]

147. The print editor must have been working with eyes closed

For that to reach publication.

[Poll_Blind]

8. SEE Manipulated and Unmanipuled images HERE

Original

Manipulated

PB

[ReadTomPaine]

11. Thanks for these, I was trying to find shots of sufficient size..

The ones included in the original article are small..

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

13. Crappy use of the clone stamp...

[Lerkfish]

14. looks more to me that the photog was trying to stretch the depth of the

photo.

right up to the skyline the photos are the same.
manipulation, yes, misleading manipulation, no.
The area was still bombed and was still smoking. The photog just cloned the top of the smoke to make it rise higher and changed the aspect ratio of the picture.

was it wrong? sure. Does it mean beirut was NOT bombed? hell no.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. That's the funny thing, not sure what this photoshop was actually supposed

to ADD to the photo.

[Recursion]

29. What it adds is a second bomb impact

The original photo shows 1 bomb impact on the far left; the doctored photo shows that original impact and makes it look like there's a second one in the center.

[Lerkfish]

35. er...I don't see that at all.

it doesn't appear TO ME anyways that there is any difference beyond sharpening and a higher contrast between the two photos below the skyline.

I could be wrong, HOWEVER, this is like rathergate: the point is not the veracity of this one photo, as it does not excuse the collective punishment being undertaken.

IN fact, it feels a bit ROVIAN in scope to me, since it was such an OBVIOUS fakery.

[Recursion]

46. Really?

Doesn't seem that way to me, though I don't buy the Rove / Rather connection either. I just think in both cases at some point in the sourcing and provenance chain somebody thought (probably with the best intentions) they could "improve" on the truth a bit to make the truth more clear.

[TheWraith]

65. No, it doesn't.

I concur with the assessment that the alterations were meant to change the aspect ratio of the photo, to make it more more square than rectangular. That, plus tweaking of the contrast and white balance, which is pretty common when you're trying to bring out details. No significant new effect was added. Ironically, the person who altered it was probably trying to prevent having to crop the photo to the desired aspect, and thus possibly losing detail.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

187. I can't say it looks much like that to my untrained eyes. Even if it did,

I don't see how it changes the general impression of the pic (bombing aftermath, smoking buildings) much, not like adding Kerry to a Jane Fonda pic etc., plus it looks quite amateurish and obviously fake, so it begs the question why would someone do this if it only makes the photo look obviously fake (with a regular "matrix" pattern in the smoke that is easily spotted), and doesn't change the impression or information conveyed in any substantial way.

I'm not saying it couldn't have BEEN doctored by the photog, but it would seem only to their detriment with no benefit or agenda of any kind being served except to defame/discredit the photog.

On edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't see much rhyme or reason to this crappy photoshop, and my skepticism is high, is all.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. A PHOTOGRAPHER did that?

Jesus, and I thought I was lousy with photoshop.

[derby378]

28. How much IS that schmuch being paid, anyway?

That is really, really sucky. The cut-and-paste technique is also woefully sucky.

[Renew Deal]

60. You can clearly see the repeating of buildings.

On the bottom. The top is pixeled out, and smoke is obviously touched. The original is bad enough. Why touch it?

[Junkdrawer]

18. Why, it's almost like the photographer WANTED to discredit...

his own work. :tinfoilhat:

[Poll_Blind]

75. Arguable point from the extremely amateurish nature of the forgery. n/t

PB

[Junkdrawer]

78. It's following the same trajectory as Rathergate...

Drudge, Malkin have now picked up the story. Let's see if Faux, CNN, then the broadcast stations follow...

[QuestionAll...]

77. so now whenever a bona fide pic of

Lebanonese destruction is shown - I'll bet reference to this fake will be added in so any legimitate pictures will have a seed of doubt.

I think that's the program here. We'll see.

==
on edit:
horribly amateur obvious p-shopping. no way this would have gone unoticed.

[blonndee]

80. It seems to be "the program" right here on this thread!

LOL. Very obvious. All of a sudden, we have to doubt that Israel's bombs are killing children. :eyes:

[Poll_Blind]

84. Yep, I'm noticing the profile of that starting to form too. n/t

PB

[Cocoa]

21. where did you get those?

[Poll_Blind]

41. (See inside)

Grabbed "original" from YNET News, "manipulated" one I grabbed from a screenshot from a larger version of the "picture kill" notice that LGF had (I think this is it). If you click on the one from LGF it probably won't come up- they're getting hammered for bandwidth and aren't serving the manipulated picture at the moment. I grabbed that manipulated picture did an entire screen capture (ALT-PrintScreen), loaded MSPaint, pasted the screen capture and then selected just the picture using the CopyTo to save just the portion I wanted to a file. Then I hosted both at ImageShack.us.

  I must be wrong about getting the manipulated one from LGF, it's far too small. I closed MSPaint after saving only the portion I wanted. Maybe check the YNet link?

PB

[Cocoa]

45. regarding the "picture kill"

I looked for that on the Reuters site itself and couldn't find it.

I also couldn't find the statement from the PR person.

I did find that the picture was pulled, but could not find the statement or apology or replacement picture referenced.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsPhotoPresentation.aspx?type=photoSearch&imageID=2006-08-05T193003Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-COL.XML

[Poll_Blind]

61. The one I grabbed was definitely from a larger version of the...

..."picture kill" message (because I had to go through the hassle I described to cut it out). Here's another link to both. Hat tip to: WakeMe2008

PB

[Cocoa]

67. thanks for those links

not to be ungrateful, because I do appreciate you taking the time to answer me, but I don't consider those to be good enough sources, since they're essentially blogs.

I did however find confirmation of this story on Yahoo News...



ATTENTION EDITORS: THIS IS A CORRECTED FILE OF LBN20. REUTERS HAS ISSUED A KILL OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION. Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Picture taken August 5, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)

[MsMagnificent]

149. On the one you posted link to

I see two plumes of very dense black smoke.

The allegedly manipulated one shows two larger plumes, taken a bit after I would say.

I don't see why this so-called "original" can't be another shot a few seconds/minutes later... the smoke is dispersing & thinning.
But I'm no pro, admittedly.


In any event, I wouldn't trust LGF & Ace of Spades one iota.
I'll reserve any judgement until an actual Reuters page admitting this is found.

[B2G]

152. It has been

Look at the bottom of the thread.

[MsMagnificent]

154. If you're referring to 185

?x=380&y=344&sig=uBHVY6oyJTA1CfWWCnpduA--

That is not a Reuters link!
SHOW me where Reuters issued their statement! Surely it'll be on THEIR SITE
RIGHT?

WHO df is "d.yimg.com" anyhow?

Edit: Spelling

[B2G]

156. It';s the yahoo imaging site

that hosts Reuters images. It's real.

[maddezmom]

172. reuters has a link up now

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

[Occulus]

47. What was THAT trying to accomplish?

It looks like it's totally senseless manipulation, sort of a "because I can" kind of thing.

To what purpose would someone mess with smoke in the sky? It doesn't change... well, anything. There's still smoke in the sky, and it still looks to be about as much as before.

WTF?

[Schema Thing]

49. It's obvious the manipulator was trying toconjur up a Black Panther

spilling black sand out of his fist onto the ground of Beirut. Why? You'll have to ask him.

[Mr_Spock]

68. The original looks real

There isn't a great deal of detail in the photo's anyway - I prefer the close-up photo's anyway - but that's me.

I also prefer the first photo as I prefer clear pictures - the second is grainy and strange looking.




Of course, this is not much more than a distraction if this is all there is to it. Does anybody see this as a big deal or somehow taking away from the deaths of hundreds of children? I do think it's shameful for anyone to manipulate photo's - that's really bad. I'm sure someone thinks they have lessened the hit from the war crimes committed by Israel by showing this pretty benign doctoring - thought the man should be fired immediately for doing this. I think this post will inspire exactly what it was intended to - a place for pro-Israel folks to say "see, it's being exaggerated" if my instincts are correct on this.

[bling bling]

148. I just "manipulated" the original on my computer & got similar results.

I don't think he was trying to be deceptive.

Using PSP in about 2 seconds I got the buildings to look darker and granier and the smoke became much darker just like on his "manipulated" version using the "clarify" button. You use the clarify feature to make things more clear, but it does cause them to darken and become more grainy.

I think he must have done a "fade correction" or something too because the sky is much lighter.

The guy was probably just trying to make the picture look more clear and took some artistic license in the process that he shouldn't have. I think if he was trying to manipulate anything and make it look worse than it was he could have done a way better job.

In fact, if you look at the right hand corner, some of the smoke is actually either lighter or missing in the "manipulated picture." I doubt he would have removed any of the smoke if his intent was to make it look more devastating.

[Up2Late]

150. I smell a RAT! This is too poorly done for anyone to have seriously...

...tried to pass it off as "real" (un-retouched). It's just WAY too obvious!

That's one of the worst Photoshop jobs I've ever seen! Looks like a "...my first time I ever used Photoshop..." photo.

I'm going to wait for the Reuters Investigation, because their is NO WAY any professional photographer would do this to their own photo, and then try to pass it off to a world-wide wire service as un-retouched.

My guess is that the Reuters site was HACKED!

By who, I don't know.

Who would I suspect? Here a list to start with:

CIA

DIA (someone in the Pentagon) <http://www.dia.mil/>

All other American "intelligence" services.

White House staff

RW Hackers

AIPAC

IDF

This list could be very long.

[CJCRANE]

19. This is probably a Dan Rather Memogate

type set-up. Just like the freepers screamed that the memo was fake and completely ignored the substance of it, they can do the same here and say the photos have been staged.

(It won't convince anyone else but it'll keep the freepers happy).

[Cocoa]

20. I don't accept THIS story as fact

I couldn't confirm in any source I have heard of that Reuters pulled the photo.

Can anyone provide a confirming link. Thanks.


edit: I found it myself, on Yahoo News...



ATTENTION EDITORS: THIS IS A CORRECTED FILE OF LBN20. REUTERS HAS ISSUED A KILL OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION. Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Picture taken August 5, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. I certainly never heard of "ynetnews.com" until this moment.

[Recursion]

48. Never heard of YNetNews?

It's sourced here all the time, incidentally. It's kind of the Israeli Al-Jazeera. It has a pretty secular, non-Orthodox, andi-Settler editorial line but still gets blasted by the left for being too Zionist and by the right for not being Zionist enough.

[B2G]

27. From Reuters PR person

"Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

"As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software," she added"

I suppose you could email her for confirmation.

[BeachBuckeye]

44. What an idiotic assertion

I suppose we can assume that ALL of the photo's of Beirut and Qana are fake then? Sure, its all Hollywood fake photography with special effects. Beirut is untouched and the folks in Qana are all at the beach today.

[B2G]

50. Excuse me, but are you talking to me?

What have I assumed that's "idiotic". Maybe this was just thread placement gone awry...

[Recursion]

53. *shrug* don't forget the "baby milk factory"

Remember during Desert Storm when the Iraqi government staged that "baby milk factory" photo-op? (Apparently we were never supposed to wonder why it had "baby milk factory" in English, or what kind of factory makes baby milk.) There was a similar propaganda psyops when we bombed Sudan.

The fact that America and Israel are in the wrong here doesn't mean that the people who oppose these actions always, or even often, tell the truth. As a rule, people with an agenda tend to spin and/or lie to advance that agenda, whether their countries are powerful or weak.

[BeachBuckeye]

76. I remember it well

What I'm saying is that its not reasonable to assume that just because one photographer had phony photos they are ALL fake. There are dozens of news agencies in that area and its irresponsible to believe that the truth isn't getting out.

[B2G]

79. I haven't seen anyone

suggesting that they're all fake. Only that stunts like this cast a shadow of doubt on legitimate efforts to report.

[Richard Steele]

52. Nor can I. The Reuters site itself seems to have no mention of it.

This whole story SMELLS, to me.

That "photoshopping" served no purpose, except to scream "fake".
And when we see the "experienced source" who is leading the charge to
discredit it, well.....

Can anyone even show me that the doctored photo was actually
used in any news stories in the first place?

[maddezmom]

165. Reuter's link here

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

[Richard Steele]

200. Thanks MM! I owe you (another) one. nm

[MissWaverly]

25. I wish we worried more about the images of those dead kids

than we do about photoshop smoke, it's so funny how they will take one insignificant fact
and make it the dominant theme. The dominant theme is that the infrastructure of Lebanon
has been destroyed and there are many dead children in a military campaign that targeted
civilians with no real impact on it's supposed target: Hezbollah

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asthmaticeog]

26. That is, without a doubt, one of the shittiest P-Shop jobs I've ever seen

I can't BELIEVE they tried to pass that off.

[Poll_Blind]

63. You got that right. n/t

PB

[Poll_Blind]

31. This photoshop is so incredibly bad as to arguably raise questions...

...about the real intent of the "photographer" who submitted it. I am a fan of sites like Worth 1000 and Fark and the person who did this manipulation either has the skills of someone who's been using Photoshop (or other photo-manipulation software) for less than 2 hours or intended for the manipulation to be exposed.

One of the two...I've seen better photographic manipulation from the mid 90's...

PB

[Truthiness Inspector]

38. Good question

What was he thinking?

[wakeme2008]

34. Here is a good web page with the dup buildings and smoke

http://www.leftandright.us/index.php/site/reuters_faking_photos/

[Poll_Blind]

56. Ah thanks! n/t

PB

[The Stranger]

36. But still no question IDF was bombing the shit out of innocents, right?

(And you don't have to tell me again about how they were only defending their right to exist or that blanekty-blank wants to destroy them, I am looking solely for confirmation that there is no question that the IDF dropped the bombs on the civilian city as pictured in the photo.)

This really has the feeling of the 60 Minutes story and the Dan Rather document and the Right Wing press smear that exonerated the Imbecile in Chief from skipping out on his National Guard service -- which was also never in dispute.

[cali]

40. Right.

This is a distraction. Children are just as dead, and the damage to the infrastructure is just as real.

[Solo_in_MD]

43. No wonder the M$M is in a death spiral

There is some suggestion of other photos as well.

[Renew Deal]

51. Fucking liars

If they blatantly doctor photos, imagine what they are doing to stories?

[w4rma]

55. Oh, I thought this was a photo that mattered. Smoke vs. less smoke.

If the reporter photoshoped the photo to add smoke, then he should be punished. If not then he shouldn't. But, either way, this isn't a photo that matters. And it's pretty obvious that these people are trying to get the ignorant to mistrust the dead bodies they see on TV and in the Newspaper. It's pretty obvious that these people are trying to get the ignorant to mistrust everybody but "news" sources that create facts to "support" their predetermined and warped views of reality.

Heck the photo was replaced with one that hasn't been challenged and it still shows just about the same thing as the other did.

[Poll_Blind]

58. Pretty much. n/t

PB

[KoKo]

74. I looked at both pix a long time....couldn't see what the big deal is,

either unless it's propaganda to say that any photographs of damage or civilian casualties are being "manipulated." Sure would seem a sign of desperation by those interested in perpetuating war if they have to resort to differences over "smoke plumes," or haggling over body counts. :shrug:

[B2G]

59. Who gets to decide

Which photos matter and which don't? The damage is that it calls into question *any* photo or newstory out there. People with agendas have the power to do a great deal of damage. That place is a tinderbox right now...it wouldn't take much to light a fuse none of us want to see lit.

[Renew Deal]

64. There was interest in another Qana picture.

Where a guy was standing in front of destruction holding a kid. There were claims some of the pictures were staged. Maybe they were photoshopped.

[B2G]

66. I believe it was the same photographer

who took that picture as well. I'm not saying his other photos are enhanced, but it certainly calls into question his entire body of work.

[Renew Deal]

70. I agree

Everything should be looked at.

[ShortnFiery]

94. Yes, there are no Dead Children and Elderly ...

American Patriots! Go back to shopping and investing in the blessed Stock Market. There's nothing to see here - Reuters admits it's ALL fake. :sarcasm:

[w4rma]

99. Except with that picture photographers from the AP, AFP and Reuters were

all there taking photos.

I suppose now you'll say that all the photographers from the major news organizations are colluding with one another to doctor photographs? Maybe all the photographers are anti-Semites, too (disregarding the fact that arabs are Semites as well)?

[theHandpuppet]

62. No integrity and no excuse!

Shameful.

[Poll_Blind]

73. SELF-DELETE

PB

[B2G]

82. Here's another photo by the same guy

This one is being called into question as well. Look at the smoke.

?x=265&y=345&sig=L8qu29iwl4ySlicvlAezuw--

[Poll_Blind]

87. What about the smoke? Load up MSPaint, circle in red what you...

...think it weird, save it to disk and upload it to imageshack.us. This way we know exactly what you consider suspect.

Thanks!

PB

[B2G]

92. Or I could save myself a bunch of time

and just let you read through this thread. They're professional photographers.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21302

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

88. SELF-DELETE

PB

[Name removed]

91. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPKrazy]

106. Now That Is A Great Conspiracy Theory

maybe you could write a whole book about it

surely you are being sarcastic

dead corpses on ice waiting for bombs to fall so they can parade them out?

[MissWaverly]

109. well, let's not bash them over the head

There has been much doctored and presented as truth in the last few years, including the Niger
documents. But, I have read eyewitness accounts, these children are the darlings of these
villages, this is a real little village and the people are heart broken at the loss of their
children. This is not some effort by Hollywood like CSI where the dead order a pizza later.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Junkdrawer]

95. OMG! Clearly that "photo" was done with MS Word and NOT...

a 1970's typewriter.

[ShortnFiery]

98. Great minds think alike ...

Please check out my post above.

The logic of this Dismissive Propaganda will be The Story 24/7.

By hyper-focusing on just ONE error that does NOT alter the "truth of the overall situation" the boys and girls involved with PR propaganda, can TURN AROUND the situation to the point that the public will doubt that the slaughter occurred at all.

Seriously Evil, Goebbels is crying out from the grave, "You beautiful bastards! I wish that we would have had such power to sway public opinion."

[seafan]

100. What strikes me is that the whole object of this manipulated photograph

...may have been to discredit the photojournalists, any and all journalists, who are courageously on the ground trying to report what is occurring.

Not aimed specifically at one side of this conflict or the other, but casting doubt on the legitimacy in people's minds about the authenticity of the reporting.

This real reason is now conveniently being hidden in the dust-up when we fight among ourselves about *the photo*.


It's even possible that this photographer submitted the original, un-doctored photo for publication, and it was altered later by an unknown individual. And Little Green Footballs is a very suspect source for all of these accusations. This article only states that the photographer has been suspended pending the results of the investigation. That doesn't say that he confessed. It may turn out that another party in his organization is responsible. We'll have to wait for all the evidence.



All of this reminds me of the rapid *debunking* of the Dan Rather AWOL story, by an online GOP political operative in just a few hours after that program aired. Rather's story was factual. But when the operatives began raising so much stink about *the document* Rather cited, the facts of the story were buried from the public. If you fax a copy of the Constitution to someone, the content of the fax is accurate, but the fax paper is obviously altered from the original parchment. But the facts are the same. Very slick sleight of hand by the GOP. Confuse and distort. They are masters of it.


It also reminds me of this episode: (thanks to Daily Kos, from October 28, 2004)

Appropriately titled "Whatever It Takes", the new BC04 ad uses Bush's convention acceptance speech, stirring music, and images of dedicated troops and families in the heartland. As astutely noted by mikellanes in this thread:

It also uses Photoshopped images to turn a small crowd into a large one cover over Bush at a podium:

So, another incident where altering photos is very useful to a specific set of people. We know * hates the media.

What better way to accomplish this aim than to manipulate photographs to confuse the public.


And it also tangentially reminds me of the crude forgeries of the documents that claimed that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. Looks like these forgeries were aimed to discredit the CIA. (Wonder how it would have looked if, after the CIA insisted there was no truth to this document, that some WMD's were planted in Iraq by outsiders, only to be *found* by the outfit that embedded Judy Miller....hmmmmmmm.)



So, we must ask ourselves, "Who benefits from this manipulated photo that was given out to the public?"


In both instances above, *Co benefits. Fool Americans about the numbers of * supporters; discredit the media; incite further divisiveness among people about the Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

Suits these criminals to a "T".


Also from one of the internal links in this story:

Many other blogs have taken up the task of analyzing the photographs and news headlines from Qana, southern Lebanon, and the Middle East, including: Little Green Footballs , Hotair.com , Ms. Underestimated , American columnist Michelle Malkin , and The Riehl World View .

Interesting, isn't it?

[breakaleg]

102. based on the 2 photos shown here, there's hardly any difference

I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the altered photo gives a vastly different impression than the original.

[insane_cratic_gal]

104. These other photos he took are fine

and here is one of his other shots from that same shoot





So what gives? why post an obviously doctored photo.. when your shots are great without them?

Smells like fishy stuff to me

[Poll_Blind]

112. His name is Adnan Hajj (the photographer) and I agree with you.

He took some of the pictures from the massacre in Qana and it could be a case of someone (real the Israeli government) trying to discredit him. Or it could be that he just wanted to ruin his reputation even though, as you said, he is getting lots of telling, newsworthy shots.

PB

[mogster]

111. If they photoshop it, why not try to do it convincingly?

I smell a rat.

[Poll_Blind]

113. The photographer is Adnan Hajj and he took some of the pictures...

...from the Qana (sp?) massacre. The Israei government is very, very upset about the pictures of the dead children. This faked photo was so poorly faked that it was arguably submitted TO BE DISCOVERED.

  In the realm of dirty tricks, pulling something like this off would neither be terribly difficult or unsurprising given the "capabilities" available to Israel. I'm not saying they did it, but it's much easier for them to do something like this than to, say, destroy all the Katyusha launchers in Southern Lebanon.

  Having said that, duplicity on Hajj's part, some technical malfunction (i.e. he uploaded the wrong picture) can't be discounted yet.

  Mostly both sides agree that this was the world's worst photo manipulation ever seen related to a major news story and that should raise all sorts of questions.

PB

[mogster]

115. This is an infowar, alright

Has he said himself that he photoshopped it?
The ynet paper are so full of bullshit and anything coming from the LGF should be watched.

Here's a paragraph from that page that is untrue:
"Israeli war deaths go largely unnoticed / Yaakov Lappin

Hours after mother and two daughters are killed in Hizbullah rocket attack, media outlets around world fail to report deaths; meanwhile, British press continues anti-Israel tirade"

It's not underreported or unnoticed:
Big attack on Haifa
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/08/06/473148.html
10 Israelis killed
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/08/06/473131.html
Big attack against Haifa
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/midtosten/article1411997.ece
Ten killed in both countries
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/midtosten/article1411808.ece
Hezboolah Launches rocket barrage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5249972.stm
11 Israeli reservists killed
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1216363.ece
Israelis die in rocket attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

[ConsAreLiars]

114. Your heading is deceptive. Reuters admitted no such thing.

This is a good example of the typical disinfo campaign where some operatives on LGF or other right wing sites start making accusations, and then the charges are repeated in sympathetic media like ynet as if they actually had some factual basis. Eventually someone makes up a heading like your "Reuters admits" and others end up taking that invented headline as fact. Very skillfully done, but in fact Reuters has not admitting altering any photos. The pulled the original in response to the accusations, but have made no reply to the charges against the photographer.

When ynet goes on to suggest that the accusations are grounds to question the images from the Israeli massacre in Qana, then the true purpose of this disinfo campaign is revealed, and I see you echoed that point in general terms in your comments.

[MissWaverly]

116. Thanks for the post

appreciate it

[B2G]

120. How is the "headline" misleading?

The fact that Reuters pulled it is an admission that there is something extremely suspect about it. Why in the world would you attempt to defend this type of thing?

[ConsAreLiars]

122. Where does Reuters "admit altering" the photo.

Not in your link to a partisan source. You used the words "admits altering." The only fact, if there is anything at all to that story, is that one photo was challenged and replaced. If you had wanted to be accurate you would have started this thread with an honest description of what the ynet website said, without embellishing it and making the false assertion that "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo." No spinning or diversions will make that statement true.

[B2G]

123. Thanks for the lecture, but

"If you had wanted to be accurate you would have started this thread with an honest description of what the ynet website said, without embellishing it and making the false assertion that "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo."

Did you even click on the link I posted? It was *their* headline, not something I made up or embellished. Sheesh.

[ConsAreLiars]

129. The statement was not supported by the "facts" that were alleged in the

article. If you had read it "carefully" you would not have repeated that false headline. That "embellishment" was a pure fabrication by ynet, and you presented it here as if it were true. Indeed, you have been arguing that it is not "really" a lie because of this or that, even though there is not one bit of evidence to support that false claim.

[B2G]

131. Jesus

First you accuse me of putting words in ynets mouth, then you berate me for not reinterpreting them to your liking.

Whatever. Have fun with your red pen.

[ConsAreLiars]

133. No, It was posting false information that got my attention.

Not where or how you got it. It is just the simple fact that you repeated and defended that deception so tenaciously that prompted me to point out that the facts in that article, such as they were, did not support the claim you made here on DU.

[B2G]

135. Are you always this illogical

Or is this just my lucky day?

[ConsAreLiars]

137. Do you now admit that the heading of your post was false?

Or are you still standing by your assertion that "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo," even though there is not one bit of evidence of any such a statement by Reuters?

Blurting out childish insults does not constitute evidence.

[B2G]

138. God, you are like a dog with a bone

*I* didn't write the headline. Would you be happier with "Reuters admits Beirut photo was altered"? Will it help you sleep better tonight? Because I'd be happy to change it in the OP, just don't accuse me of altering ynet's headline after I do.

[greyl]

144. I think your post is the bone, B2G.

The canine is winning.

[struggle4progress]

117. Apparently misleading headline. Strange, largely unconfirmed story.

Primary source is wingnut blogs with misleading "Reuters doctored photo" headlines; no link to Reuters; all alleged Reuters quotes say only Reuters is investigating.

+++! Plus the usual wingnut huff-n-puff that the photographer has prerviously been accused of staging photos, with no substantial evidence, no real links, etc

The photographer (Adnan Hajj) usually seems to do fairly standard stuff, as far as I can tell.

http://d.yimg.com.nyud.net:8090/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20060716/2006_07_16t044603_289x450_us_mideast.jpg

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

132. In a way, I'd really rather not express any opinion: the noise machine ..

.. typically attempts to interpret small bits of information in the most inflammatory manner possible, thus encouraging the substitution of accusation for fact; thus, underlying realities tend to vanish under a raucous cloud of claim and counterclaim. In the case at hand, nobody has produced any credible link to a Reuters statement, and I've been unable to locate such a statement.

There is some evidence of a doctored photo, which Reuters may actually have posted: I don't know for sure anything about the provenance of that photo, although the comments above by you and others reflect my own current view, that the photographer in question typically has done good work, and there seems to be no reason for him to submit a shopped job.

It's not impossible that the photographer did such a thing: talented people with some regularity engage in unprofessional conduct. But blatant image falsification by a field photographer seems unlikely: such a person, after all, needs to justify to self the risk to life and limb, and a common justification is that one bears real witness by producing truthful images of record; moreover, the large amounts of time required to negotiate daily life in a warzone restrict the time available for goofing around with some silly photoshopping. My own guess would be that if Reuters did post a photoshopped image, the guilty party is likely to be somebody on the layout team, sitting in a comfy office somewhere, trying to construct a visually striking page before deadline: such a person typically works with a variety of images which are commonly subject to aesthetic improvements.

The story so far does exhibit definite "noise machine" features, most notably the attempt to change the subject to allegations that photos involving dead children in Qana were "staged" -- yet another invitation to a loud bout of claim and counterclaim, which obscures the actual dead bodies under some ill-defined "controversy" regarding the "credibility" of the photographer.

[Poll_Blind]

119. Thread opened in the Propaganda Debunking forum for those...

..wishing to go on a little scavenger hunt this afternoon to find what they can to either support or erode some of the assertions made in this thread. More here.

  I'm taking off soon to go to a baby shower (woo! hoo!) but I thought it might be nice to throw a thread in the under-utilized Propaganda Debunking forum. This is just a perfect example of that forum's usefulness.

  I may have time to add some things, maybe not, but I wanted to open a more objective environment where people could present what the find to back up or challenge some of the suggestions made in this thread.

PB

[Marie26]

193. I don't get it

The propaganda was the re-touched photograph. And it was debunked when it was revealed that the photographer had re-touched the photo. Reuters has said as much & suspended the photographer. What needs to be debunked? It seems like people are trying to furiously spin this to be somehow Israel's fault, or some conspiracy theory. And that makes it seem like people are just not willing to believe that both sides can manipulate the truth. Everyone has an agenda. Israeli media tries to minimize the damage, & anti-Israeli media tries to maximize it. This photographer was probably trying to maximize the extent of damage to Beirut & willing to change the photo to do so.

[Poll_Blind]

124. In doing some simple research for the Propaganda Debunking thread...

...it appears that Adnan Hajj is an extremely prolific photographer who has captured a huge number of apparently-undoctored shots. This would lead me to believe that there is something more at play here.

A link to Reuters photographs by Adnan Hajj based on a link from Michelle Malkin's (vomit) site. Some of these photos may be explicitly graphic. Almost all of them are truly hearbreaking.

PB

[B2G]

125. If Hajj didn't alter the photo

and someone within the Reuters organization did, that's almost worse. And what I tend to believe might be the case. No photographer worth his salt would do that to one of his pics. Especially since the original was better than the photoshopped version. It makes no sense.

[Poll_Blind]

127. The number of points at which the image could haev been altered...

...because of it's presumably digital transmission and storage, are larger than just points involving the photographer or the processing of Reuters themselves. Too little information to know yet- I'm sure Reuters is actively investigating this.

Especially since the "undoctored" version of the image was also released, which indicates that the photographer, if he did alter the image, uploaded the original as well. This is not something one would reasonably do if they wished to pass off a doctored image as the real thing.

PB

[Poll_Blind]

126. Also, Reuters does not appear to have admitted anything about the...

...image, at most, issued a picture kill. I still would like a link to the picture kill AT Reuters.

PB

[B2G]

128. This is all I can find

Not sure if it's legit.

?x=380&y=344&sig=uBHVY6oyJTA1CfWWCnpduA--

[Poll_Blind]

136. That's not perfect, but still pretty good. Thanks. n/t

PB

[maddezmom]

161. Reuter's link here

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

[Poll_Blind]

134. Who wrote the copy "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo"? Yaakov Lappin?

Yaakov Lappin is a very conservative writer. I'm running out of time before I have to leave but it appears that though Mr. Lappin put his name on the YNet story and that no other author or source is listed. If anyone wants to do some research on who wrote the story which specifically includes the phrase "Reuters admits altering" that would be very useful, I think.

PB

[Poll_Blind]

139. According to Google News "Reuters admits" was first used....

...by YNet News by Yaakov Lappin.

PB

[B2G]

140. I understand your quest here

But isn't Reuters admitting that the image was photoshopped by issuing the kill? Doesn't the buck ultimately stop with them in this matter?

[Poll_Blind]

142. Reuters is pulling the picture they apparently distributed.

Nothing more of any empirical weight, has been added to that to the best of my research. Mr. Lappin appears to be the one to label the kill an "admission" but its removal is merely that: a removal. One could assert that, if Israel stopped bombarding Lebanon that it was an "admission" of their failed policy or it could be the result of an objective obtained. One could assert that, if Hezbollah stopped sending Katyushas into Israel that it was an "admission" of their defeat or it could be the result of an objective obtained.

  For all I know Reuters has pulled the photograph because of the controversy. It is likely that it will remain pulled because it does appear to be an obviously-doctored image.

  However, title of the article is "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo". The blame for the alteration has been placed variously on the photographer or on Reuters as an organization but until further evidence is provided, Reuters can be said to have simply "pulled" the image, not admitted some clandestine behavior on their part to deceive.

PB

[k_jerome]

141. thank you posting this...

I commend your courage.

[MrPrax]

143. In googling...

I could really only find the Ynet story being the source...so far...it looks like salting to me, but I can't be sure, as it is only the usual suspect far right sites like LGF and Judeascope.

JPost has a lengthy story on this which traces the controversy back to the diligence of American bloggers, but does manage to make the story more about how the Western media is bias towards Israel

But this Pajamas Media site is 'diligently' finding other photos with a lot of background on the photographer:

Reuters Doctoring Beirut Photos (Updated)

Critical Update: Reuters admits photo doctored, suspends another employee for death threat.

Scroll down for other updates.

The photo below is attributed to Adnan Hajj, of the Reuters news agency. The photo alleges to show smoke covering the Beirut sky. The problem with the photo is that it is that it has been doctored to make it appear that an Israeli missile strike did much more damage than it actually did.

Adnan Hajj also took the photos of dead children at Qana. Allegations have arisen that the Qana photos were part of a staged event put on by Hezbollah operatives.

There is no doubt that the photo below is doctored. And not very well. It uses a common Photoshop technique called cloning, where one part of a picture is copied and replicated onto another part of the photo. The billowing smoke and several buildings in the photo are clones of other parts of the photo.

Jawa Report

Similar advocacy tone as the JPost article -- crude attempt to undermine reporting on the Lebanese side of the conflict...which of course makes Israel look bad, which Israel doesn't want.

[OKNancy]

145. kick

[MsMagnificent]

151. WE'RE BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE, FOLKS

I'm simply AMAZED at the number of people jumping on the bandwagon condemning this without going to critically read the article
Isn't that what we DU'ers, for the most part, pride ourselves on -- NOT drinking the Kool-Aid?

where there is NO Reuter's link, NO page coming up on Reuters, and any search turns up NOTHING except for sites like LGF!

If I'm wrong, fine -- I'll happily admit it

BUT SHOW ME THE SOURCE!

[B2G]

153. No, you're not

?x=380&y=344&sig=uBHVY6oyJTA1CfWWCnpduA--

[MsMagnificent]

155. No? I'm still waiting for you to tell us who d.yimg.com is...

[B2G]

159. And I answered you upthread

It's the yahoo imaging site that hosts Reuters photos.

[MsMagnificent]

164. Which states:

"Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

*emphasis mine

"until investigations are completed"
NOTHING is decided yet.

[Jazz2006]

167. Psst, see Reuters link

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

[MsMagnificent]

170. ty, I will :)

[twenty4blackbirds]

163. There was one doctored smoke photo. But the kids were real :-(

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=TopNews&storyID=2006-08-06T215602Z_01_L06301298_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-REUTERS.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-TopNews-10

[Jazz2006]

157. It was published as a Reuters photo - later "corrected" - link:

Reuters published a "corrected" version here and says that the prior one was "killed":



On edit: I don't know why the link isn't working but it's news.yahoo.com/ news?tmpl=story&u=/060806/ids_photos_wl/r1119244085.jpg


Just remove the space after news.yahoo.com/ and it should show up with the Reuters designation and the following note:

ATTENTION EDITORS: THIS IS A CORRECTED FILE OF LBN20. REUTERS HAS ISSUED A KILL OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION. Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs

and they've posted it at Reuters now as well:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

[maddezmom]

160. Reuter's link up now

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

[B2G]

168. Thank you very much

I appreciate you finding and posting this link.

[MsMagnificent]

177. Well OK then

Funny, that Reuters "investigation" ("until investigations are completed"} was mighty quick!
& on a Sunday too!

From what "evidence" I've seen so far, G-who-shall-not-be-named; with the assistance of LGF, YNET & Ace of Spades won their little catapult.
Oh yes, with the help of DUers.

Now every photo that displeases the Israeli government will of course be "doctored" or claimed to be doctored -- to some, proof enough.

Great.

Rather like the agreement that if IDF doesn't like any live news clip, the 3 major US channels (and who owns the cable news? Hmmm.) have agreed not to run it.
People have wondered why the Palestinians don't try the amhisa of Mahatma Gandhi : non-violent civil disobedience. For that to work there have to be 3 players: The oppressed, the oppressors, and a free and independent media to record and disseminate the non-violent protest to the world. Can you guess which one is missing?
Now, guess why amhisa won't work.

I guess since "news" blogs said it was wrong
--blogs such as LGF & Ace of Spades--
who am *I* to argue against such fair & balanced wisdom that only seeks the unvarnished truth?
(I especially love the boxed link article on that YNET page "Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat" whose sole link is Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs. Enjoy!)

For my own peace of mind, when I see a reasoned, verifiable, documented statement from Reuters I'll truly consider this finally closed... and if/when it's debunked completely I'll fully adhere to it. (No guarantee if Reuters et. al. just turn chicken & roll over for the Wingnuts).

Next, however, expect the renewed onslaught of "allegations that the photographs were staged" ...& on the DU pages, too.
With tons of outrage.

Count on it.


But at this point in time, for the sake of this argument fine -- I concede.

Right now there is no way for i] anyone to 'win' this -- considering absence of that darn pesky proof, evidence & a full investigation from top specialists in the field --those who strangely don't happen to be handily on staff on weekends, you know! :eyes:


Still, can't help but wonder who this post will displease that it too will be deleted?
I didn't spell out your G-word,
how about Megaphone?

*yoink*

[bling bling]

158. Connection between this and Qana photos?

I guess that would would be a reasonable question if Reuters, AFP, and the AP ALL used this photographer when they published the Qana photos.

However, the NY Times explicitly stated that Reuters, AFP, and the AP had their own photographers in Qana.

Interesting the article didn't mention that part. Instead, they infer that all the pictures from Qana are called into question as a result of some connection between this ONE photographers pictures.

That's irresponsible reporting. But why would I expect anything else.

[Poll_Blind]

185. Yep, I noticed that too. They'd like you to believe that this guy...

...set up the Qana photos in their entirety.

  Nomatter what the conservative asshats say, it's still the IAF that set up that photo-shoot.

PB

[Poll_Blind]

162. Reuters drops freelance Lebanese photographer over image

Reuters drops freelance Lebanese photographer over image

LONDON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Reuters, the global news and information agency, told a freelance Lebanese photographer on Sunday it would not use any more of his pictures after he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut.

--snip--

Reuters withdrew the doctored image on Sunday and replaced it with the unaltered photograph after several news blogs said it had been manipulated using Photoshop software to show more smoke.

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

"This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him," Whittle said in a statement issued in London.

  That's the end of the story, or is it? Questions about the intentions of the photographer naturally remain.

1) If there was intentional misdirection on his part, why such a terrible job?
2) If bloggers were able to get the unmodified image, it suggests that both were sent by Hajj to Reuters. Is that something a person whose intent to willingly deceive would do?

  I salute Reuters for discontinuing to use his service, however. If his behavior broke their guidelines, it broke their guidelines, period. I have a feeling this dismissal has at least equal parts policy violation and ass-covering. In this very thread there have been calls against Reuters' credibility in its entirety as a news gathering organization, something familiar to all of U.S. who lived through the painful days of Rathergate.

  I can only hope that such high journalistic standards are adhered to when there isn't a Conservative attack machine to turn up the heat on an organization but I think we all have our suppositions, based on experience, about that.

PB

[mogster]

171. "Removing dust marks", lol

The last thing this conflict need are 'dust marks', that's for sure. You're implying a set up by somebody at Reuters internally?
Well, at least it shows their editorial picture filter ain't perfect, this must have passed more than one eye on the way to publishing. It took me one millisec to spot the photoshopping, it's the crudest of cloning.

[Poll_Blind]

173. No, I didn't mean to imply that anyone at Reuters set him up.

This appears to be entirely of his own doing. However, his intent does not, to me, seem as sinister as the conservative sites have implied. These sites are out for blood after his Qana pictures and he gave them an opportunity to extract just that by his own careless behavior.

PB

[mogster]

181. Come on, PB

That was not careless behaviour, where are the dustmarks on the original?



There has been a little green football match between Reuters and the LGF before:

First Published: 05.29.06, 20:36
Latest Update: 05.30.06, 09:38
Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat
Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day when you pigs get your throats cut'
(...)
It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html

Now, this article:

First Published: 08.06.06, 10:41
Latest Update: 08.06.06, 20:00
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
(...)
Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog , which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote : "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

If you follow the links and links and links through the various blogs, there are theories everywhere about this guy (and other local freelancers), first and foremost based on the assumption that the world media doesn't see the Israeli suffering and that the reporting has a slant. That speculation (often consisting of so-called 'debunking' that does not disclose it's process) is targeted at all news photos, including the ambulances with bullet holes. All tied together now and 'verified' by this story.

The interesting thing about this is the incredibly infantile photoshopping that made it all the way into the Reuters web.

[Poll_Blind]

183. I think you misread something in my reply #162.

  I'm not saying or implying that Reuters had anything to do with this beyond responding A) to his breaking of their rules and B) to the great outcry from conservative bloggers. I will also go further to clarify that when I said "careless" behavior on his part I, in no way, mean to exculpate him for what he did, which is clearly blatant manipulation of an image. However, I did some research on him initially (presuming he might be a sort of modern-day Richard Boyle, a real person depicted in the Oliver Stone movie "Salvador"). I found that he had traveled the world doing freelance photography not just from Lebanon or the Middle East. For instance, he covered the Asian Cup in 2004, World Cup soccer matches in Germany this year- as in he seemed to be a full-time freelance photographer and not just someone who happens to live in Lebanon who is able to take pictures of the bombing there. Which, I think, is a distinction worth making. Remember, getting fired by Reuters isn't necessarily a career-ending move for a photographer but AP and others who have employed him will be much less likely to further use his services which makes his editing of the picture, in such a fashion, extremely dangerous to his career. The questions I ask in my reply #162 I still think are valid:

1) If there was intentional misdirection on his part, why such a terrible job?
2) If bloggers were able to get the unmodified image, it suggests that both were sent by Hajj to Reuters. Is that something a person whose intent to willingly deceive would do?

  I guess DU certainly has its share of conspiracy theorists but on this issue I don't have a conspiracy to sell, just the questions which I posed in all seriousness.

  This guy seriously damaged his career, at least covering non-sports news, with a very clumsily-manipulated image which, it is arguable, didn't change the content of the image a whole heck of alot.

  I don't think between my reply #162 and this one, if you're still thinking I'm trying to subtly put a meaning beyond puzzlement and the obvious questions that still remain that I'll have a reply different from this one.

PB

[mogster]

202. Awright, PB

This wasn't about making you try to say anything you didn't :-)
I'm just iterating through the story and how it will be recieved, in Israel. Thanks for the info on WC in Germany, I didn't know that.
The blogs I was referring to are Israeli rw blogs, where news pictures are 'debunked' as being fake, and so discrediting the media reporting from Lebanon. It's the Israeli version of 'librul media', and has many of the same hallmarks as the rw in the US has. I agree to your questions, and are kinda taking them further; if both pictures were sent to Reuters, how come they picked the photoshopped one for publication?
This is breaking in Norw. now, and here's an interesting comparison from the news article:

Real:


Manipulated:


From 2003, where a photographer taking pics in Basra edited his photo digitally to make it more perfect.
The story:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2975

[Up2Late]

203. What are they saying about the photos you posted?

Because those are NOT manipulated, as far as I can tell, just two photos, taken about a second apart, and the second one is cropped tighter than the first. :shrug:

The cropping did a few things:

1) It focuses the eye to the man w/child in center

2) It crops out that white poll on the right

3) It crops out the Arab looking person on the right.

That is all very normal and acceptable practice.

[mogster]

204. It was a combination of two photos

Taken in a space of some seconds. Point is, the photos looked better when combined because the man was then looking at the soldier, who had his arm outreached.
No big lie, but still.

[Up2Late]

205. Whoever is saying the two photos were combined is wrong.

Look at the solder more closely, yes, his hand and body position are nearly the same, but his head position and mouth are slightly different, but that's hard to see on such a small jpg photo. I'm sure zooming in makes it worst. Are there any larger versions of the two photos floating around?

This is just like the idiots that look at online pictures of the second jet just before it hits the South Tower and don't see any windows. There are a lot of very good reasons for not being able to see windows (American Broadcast video is very low resolution, the jet is a dark object on bright sky, the video was shot from at least a mile away, etc.) but these so-called "experts" never talk about the technical limitations of what they are claiming.

[twenty4blackbirds]

166. This heading is sooo misleading. Reuters didn't, the photographer did it.

Please use a more reliable source & headline.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=TopNews&storyID=2006-08-06T215602Z_01_L06301298_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-REUTERS.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-TopNews-10

Lotsa thanks,

[B2G]

169. Jesus H Christ

Thanks for showing up 8 hours into the thread and posting your wisdom. Did you read the time stamp on your link? Reuters is just now getting around to commenting.

For a bunch of folks who hate the MSM, you sure have gone to great lenghts to defend them today. See ya.

[twenty4blackbirds]

174. I am me, I am not DU.

Thanks for the differentiation.

[Poll_Blind]

175. Almost 25% of your posts at DU are contained in this single thread.

  I understand that you and it were not received as you might have expected but recognize that your upset toward twenty4blackbirds is more a manifestation of that and not anything he or she intended with thier post.

PB

[gatorboy]

176. Little Green Footballs is credited for catching this?

Weren't they the ones that "caught" Rather's memogate?

Considering how obvious the smoke manipulation was (My 10 year old could've done a better cloning job), I have to wonder just how "professional" this photographer was and what is real intentions were...

As someone mentioned before, the original looks bad enough. Why make a manipulation that's so obviously faked?

[Rex]

178. That is the worst 'cloning' I've ever seen.

What do they pay these people? Whatever it is, it's too much!

[Balbus]

180. Fuck Reuters.

Fuck all media that intentionally misleads the public. :thumbsdown:

[Poll_Blind]

184. Oh, what evidence do you have that Reuters intentionally misled anyone?

Seems like a fair question that you would be happy to address with evidence of some sort.

PB

[Balbus]

195. They printed a bullshit, doctored photo.

My own eyes - that's enough evidence for me. If they can't fact-check better than that, then I will not use them for my source of news. But if you have the mindset of "I want the news I read to tell me what I want to hear whether it's the truth or not" then Reuters is for you - have at it.

[Crabby Appleton]

186. Here is a thread of sports photographers

discussing the picture.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21302

[Poll_Blind]

188. Already posted here. Curious how such an obscure forum thread...

...is so well-known to some. Hrm. Anyway, already in the thread here.

PB

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

189. Can Someone Tell Me The Point In This? I'm Missing Something.

I see the before and after photos in this thread and I'm confused. The altered one is so obviously altered and is a really poor job at having done so. But what I'm not seeing is the point. The top photo has plenty of smoke to go round for everyone. What in the world was the need for the photoshop? I think the top photo looks bad enough. What manipulation was being attempted by cloning the smoke? What was the intention of doing so?

I don't get this. I see both photos and they are both showing me the exact same thing. The bottom one is doctored, but that just makes it look uglier and darker. But when I compare the two pics I'm still seeing generally the same city and smoke rising from it. I just don't understand the motivation to photoshop, the anger that followed, and what I'm missing by looking at the two pics that I'm supposed to be getting.

Anyone mind helpin me out here?

[Renew Deal]

191. I said the same thing.

It defies logic.

[Poll_Blind]

197. Indeed.

From my message with the Reuters Firing story:

That's the end of the story, or is it? Questions about the intentions of the photographer naturally remain.

1) If there was intentional misdirection on his part, why such a terrible job?
2) If bloggers were able to get the unmodified image, it suggests that both were sent by Hajj to Reuters. Is that something a person whose intent to willingly deceive would do?

PB

[gatorboy]

192. That the original photo is out there,

shows that the photographer didn't just try to slip the heavily cloned image into publication as an original.

Maybe someone should be asking who the photo editor is.

[mtice]

194. There's a lot of conspiracy theory going on here...

... but before any of them can be taken seriously, someone is going to have to address the least-complicated scenario, that the photographer is sympathetic to Hezbollah, that he therefore has a vested interest in making the Israeli attacks seem as devastating as possible, and exaggerated the image for the consumption of sympathetic international media. That we are all horrified by civilian deaths is the exact reason Hezbollah aims to cause them by siting their launch pads and arsenals next to schools and hospitals. At what point are we encouraging such behavior by reacting to incidents such as Qana by putting additional pressure on Israel?

[Poll_Blind]

196. "At what point are we encouraging such behavior by reacting to incidents..

..such as Qana by putting additional pressure on Israel?"

  That's a sick thought, a really sick thought and I'm not sure who you think that pseudo-argument would sway or what pile of sawdust they'd have under their breastbone if it did.

  And if it was Rwanda or Darfur?

PB

[mtice]

198. It should sway any educated person

When we're talking about folks sick enough to strap bombs to their own children and turn them into anti-personnel weapons - and we are - then we have to discard the thinking that because you and I would never do such a thing that they too would also recoil in horror at the thought. I'd never strap a bomb to my children regardless of grievance, but the enemies of Israel do so routinely, and grotesquely celebrate it.

Please, tell me what is implausible about the idea of Hezbollah manufacturing the deaths of civilians on their own sides by using them as unwilling human shields. Where do you think these missiles are being fired from? Hezbollah has no formal military bases, it is using the very same schools and hospitals it wins such plaudits for building to store its rockets and to expose the local citizenry to retaliation for exactly this kind of propaganda purpose. Hezbollah is not like Israel, it does not care whether the civilians on its side live or die.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. Anybody who is familiar with Photoshop and the clone tool

ought to know what a glaringly bad fake that is.

Nature doesn't produce perfectly identical rows of smoke.

[maalak]

201. why were my posts in this thread deleted?