SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=96597)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tycho102

All news reporting has to be biased. There's just not time or room to "report" 10,000 stories. So everyone ends up either trying to find an agency that has the bias they are looking for, or they end up trying to convert all the other agencies to fit their bias.

Besides all this, Reuters is French, and France has sided with the jihadists since Charles DeGaulle decided they would. When I want to see jihadist propaganda, I specifically go looking at Reuters photos (usually via CNN or Yahoo). AP and AFP also play ball with the local dictators, but not to the same level as Reuters.

Man, either way, photoshopping photos is U. A. (Un-Authorized). I don't care what the bias is, liberal or warmongerish. Don't photoshop photos. Don't Premiere (or Ulead's Mediastudio) video.

The moment France will support Israël, they have a serious problem with their Islamic population.

Some additonal relections on the problem of manipulated pictures, and incompetent editors.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...p-against.html

when they showed the initail photograph of the captured/kidnapped soldier on the news. i was completely baffled...never in my life had i seen a less convincing photograph....a picture of the most harmless looking kid concievable glued onto an incongrous picture of a military vehicle ....just sat there wondering what the heck was going on....not that it matters...real or fake..no one really cares any more ...

good article skybird......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

good article skybird......

There is more good stuff on that site, as I have linked to some days ago. Some thoughts and materials are not bad simply because they are published on a blog site only. Their quality depends on the thinker - not on the type of site, as some people have suggested to me in the past.

What to me is interesting is the contrast between the title of the thread "Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war", the actual Israeli newspaper's headline "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo", and the actual event itself as reported in this paper: "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."

Notice the differences?

1. The actual event consists of changes made to a photo (note the singular use of the word photo) by the photograher who Reuters had already suspended and whose photo they'd pulled before this Israeli "news" story was even printed;

2. From there it morphs into a headline asserting that the news organizations itself altered the photo;

3. And finally, the event again becomes even more distorted when its posted here as Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war.

But perhaps I am the only one to see the irony in this controversy over Reuter's "distortions".

But if I am I will point out a photographer != Reuters
a photo != photos
and altered != doctored (this last point may be subtle, but the words have different meanings and implications)

And while we're on the subject of Israel/Lebanon, spin, and propaganda, here's a newspaper story from Skybird's neck of the woods:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...429105,00.html

Quote:

The Mideast PR War: News on a Platter

Propaganda is part of every war, just like bombs and soldiers. Still, it's remarkable how professionally Israel deals with foreign journalists, catering conscientiously to all their needs. Lunch included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

It wasn't an Israeli newspaper that outed Reuters, it was a blogger, and it was only after publication of the photos, 192 of them to be exact, so yeah, the title of this thread is accurate.

But no comment on the practice Scandium? No comment on the many reports of journalist coercion by Hezbollah? No comment on the trucks of dead babies being trucked from location to location to provided photo ops?

If it were Israel you'd be screaming to high heaven yet here you wait until page 2 to attack the thread title. Hmmm, you don't happen to own a "green helmet" do you?

It would be quite a scape goat, quite an alibi, to throw all the blame into the lap of one lone photographer, operating alone, without instructions, the weakest chain, which still doesn't exclude responsability from the agency publishing the photos anyway. Though I'm more inclined to believe the prestigious Reuters agency wouldn't allow such autonomy in the hands of a computer geek whiz kid, nor that they don't have anyone to verify the photos or even check if they were doctored before passing forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

The article you quote says "altered photo". Singular. Not "doctored photos". Further, Reuters pulled all photos submitted by this photographer and have since found one more photo that was also altered by this same photographer (that was after the Ynet story was printed). Quite a big gap between 2 and 192. And I hadn't realized there was a posting schedule I was expected to adhere to. My comment is on page two because I felt like commenting today rather than yesterday or the day before. Simple enough for you?

As to the rest of your claims, what are you basing them on? If you are going to ask me questions then give the links that you are basing your assertions on and I will answer them.

[Edit] By the way, even a blog linked to from Ynet's LGF asserts that there were only two altered photos, so again what are you pulling this 192 figure out of?

http://theshapeofdays.com/2006/08/a_...the_adnan.html

Quote:

So now we know the what. We know what happened — Adnan Hajj faked at least two photos and submitted them to Reuters. We will probably never know why.

Hey, there's a war going on people.

Things like this are expected. The good and the bad do it.:know:

I'd be willing to bet that this kind of stuff is common in the news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

The article you quote says "altered photo". Singular. Not "doctored photos".

Doctored: To alter or modify for a specific end.

And two is not singular...

Quote:

Further, Reuters pulled all photos submitted by this photographer and have since found one more photo that was also altered by this same photographer (that was after the Ynet story was printed). Quite a big gap between 2 and 192.

So you're saying the rest are ok then. That's why they pulled them all i guess, because they were fine examples of journalistic integrity.

Quote:

And I hadn't realized there was a posting schedule I was expected to adhere to. My comment is on page two because I felt like commenting today rather than yesterday or the day before. Simple enough for you?

Yeah you're right. My apologies for bringing it up.

Quote:

As to the rest of your claims, what are you basing them on? If you are going to ask me questions then give the links that you are basing your assertions on and I will answer them.

[Edit] By the way, even a blog linked to from Ynet's LGF asserts that there were only two altered photos, so again what are you pulling this 192 figure out of?

http://theshapeofdays.com/2006/08/a_...the_adnan.html

Quote:

So now we know the what. We know what happened — Adnan Hajj faked at least two photos and submitted them to Reuters. We will probably never know why.

Oops you're right, it's not 192, it's much worse, it's 920!

As for what i'm basing my opinions on you don't have to look much further than the links posted here in this thread:

For example:

Quote:

It then shows a number of pictures, taken from different angles, by Reuters and the Associated Press, of the man holding the same child's body – but notes that there is a 4 hour time discrepancy between the time logs of the photographs.

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/2..._wa%281%29.jpg
The man in the green helmet holding a child's body (Photo: AP)

The website posts a series of photographs of the same man holding the child, each picture being separated by a significant time gap, before finally showing an AP photograph of the child's body in an ambulance taken at 7:21 in the morning – around nine hours before an AP photo was taken of the same child being held by the man in the green helmet.
A photograph is shown of "the same girl, this time apparently being placed in the ambulance. Also taken by AP… Intriguingly, though, the dateline given is 10.25 am, three hours after she has already been photographed in the ambulance."
While in previous photographs the man carrying the child's body is seen without a fluorescent jacket and helmet, the website then shows another AP photograph "of the same worker, showing obvious distress, carrying the same girl. But now he is wearing his fluorescent jacket and helmet and has acquired latex gloves."
Additional questions

An American weblog, Confederate Yankee , whose logo is that "liberalism is a vegetative state," says that "in a picture that hits the wires just one hour (9:06 AM) after the building collapse, a Lebanese Red cross member sits with bodies already displaying significant rigor mortis. About.com puts the timing of maximum stiffness at about 12-24 hours after death. These people were supposed to have died within one hour of these photos being taken."
"Whatever else, the event in Qana was a human tragedy," EU Referendum said. "But the photographs do not show it honestly. Rather, they have been staged for effect, exploiting the victims in an unwholesome manner. In so doing, they are no longer news photographs - they are propaganda," the blog concluded.

It also asks whether the workers' "presence at Qana on Sunday, and his central, unchallenged role, cannot have been a coincidence. Is he a senior ranking Hizbullah official? If not, who is he?"

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 .

The Riehl blog compares photographs of bodies of men to those of women and children in Qana and notes: "They certainly seem to be going to a lot of trouble to cover up what looks like a number of adult males, most likely Hizbullah fighters, while making sure that images of any children or women killed in Qana are fully exposed."

There will be more coming out now that the dogs have a scent. Be prepared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

The article you quote says "altered photo". Singular. Not "doctored photos".

Doctored: To alter or modify for a specific end.

And two is not singular...

Quote:

So you're saying the rest are ok then. That's why they pulled them all i guess, because they were fine examples of journalistic integrity.

The altered image that created this controversy, the one with the cloned smoke, was published August 5th and by the next day Reuters had not only reviewed the photo and pulled it, but also terminated their relationship with the photographer - all of this before the story even was even published in Ynet; and by Monday, August 7th, they had begun a review of the 920 photos submitted by this photographer, and finding a second altered photo, decided to pull all of his photos. So yeah I think this is a good example of journalistic integrity given that they acted promptly and thoroughly, and were very open about this rather than attempting any cover up; they also held the photographer accountable for his actions as well rather than try and defend him.

Quote:

Oops you're right, it's not 192, it's much worse, it's 920!

Again you distort, the irony is priceless. From the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...er-beirut.html

Quote:

After Reuters published the smoking buildings photo on Saturday, the online community began claiming that the photo was altered. The agency conducted a review and found the image had indeed been changed using Photoshop. Reuters terminated its relationship with Hajj on Sunday.

The agency then began an immediate review of Hajj's other recent work and, on Monday, found that the jet photo taken Aug. 2 had also been doctored. Reuters then withdrew from its database the 920 photos Hajj had taken for the agency over the years.

"This doesn't mean that every one of his 920 photographs in our database was altered. We know that not to be the case from the majority of images we have looked at so far but we need to act swiftly and in a precautionary manner," Szlukovenyi said.

As to the other allegations:

http://news.aol.com/nation/story/_a/...990008?cid=505

Quote:

The AP said information from its photo editors showed the events were not staged, and that the time stamps could be misleading for several reasons, including that web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken. An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion.

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.

Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."

Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said.

"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."

The AP had three different photographers there who weren't always aware of what the others were doing, and filed their images to editors separately, said Santiago Lyon, director of photography.

There are also several reasons not to draw conclusions from time stamps, Lyon said. Following a news event like this, the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit.

The AP indicates to its members when they are sent on the wire, and member Web sites sometimes use a different time stamp to show when they are posted.

The only "news" here is how so many blogs, all of them of the extreme right-wing variety, seem to be falling all over themselves to parrot the same crap in attempt to obscure the bigger picture. Anyway have at it, whatever soothes that thing you call a conscience.

The hypocracy here is truly stunning. So many people with their panties in a wad over two altered photographs that the news agency almost immediately pulled, along with every other photo ever submitted by this pgotographer - just in case - while from the same lot nothing but excuses for the military that for 6 hours shells a clearly marked U.N. outpost before bombing it, killing all 4 U.N. observers within, then merely shrugs and says 'oops, sorry'. :dead:

The larger picture you attempt to obscure is that the IDF really is killing innocent civilians over there, many of them women and children, and if it is not doing so deliberately then it is doing it so recklessly and indifferently as to blur the line.

Are these props?

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...20relative.jpg

Those were innocent Canadians whose only crime was to be on vacation in a place that Israel decided to destroy, and in the process trapping that family there and then killing them. There are your "props" and human "sandbags".