Reuters caught posting edited photos

[Xiahou]

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

A series of close ups are then posted on the blog, showing that "it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were 'enhanced.' There are also cloned buildings." The close ups do appear to show exact replicas of buildings appearing next to one another in the photograph.

And another.link (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html)

The latest image to face doubts is a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter jet over the skies of Lebanon, seen in the image firing off "missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh," according to the image's accompanying text provided by Reuters.

Rusty Shackleford, owner of the My Pet Jawa web log , noted that the warplane in the picture is actually firing defensive flares aimed at dealing with anti-aircraft missiles.

In addition, Shackelford says the flares have been replicated by Reuters, giving the impression that the jet was firing many "missiles," thereby distortion the image

And in related news a Reuters employee apparently made death threats to a blog member who helped expose the doctored photos:
link (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html)

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut."

If you can get thru to their site (it's down intermittenly, I imagine due to traffic) you can read about it at littlegreenfootballs.com (http://littlegreenfootballs.com)

[Redleg]

THe third one was to funny. Sending a threat from a tracable source. :dizzy2:

[rory_20_uk]

The damage isn't faked though, is it?

Not good journalism, but it seems they wanted "sexier" pictures than they could get without the Israelis killin them.

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

The damage isn't faked though, is it?
Well maybe....

A series of close ups are then posted on the blog, showing that "it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were 'enhanced.' There are also cloned buildings." The close ups do appear to show exact replicas of buildings appearing next to one another in the photograph.

[The_Mark]

And the editors seriously missed the smoke picture?

/Edit. Apparently, it got submitted directly to their picture database, but someone had to release the picture...

[orangat]

Its bizzare that the photographer felt that the pictures even need faking in the first place.

[The Wizard]

Ah, so my worst fears have become truth. The press is nothing but a tool, used to influence the public opinion with subtle propaganda at the instigation of a small cabal.

Ah, Twain, Jefferson, why did you have to be right :no:

[PanzerJaeger]

Rusty Shackleford, owner of the My Pet Jawa web log , noted that the warplane in the picture is actually firing defensive flares aimed at dealing with anti-aircraft missiles.

Did anyone catch that? :laugh4:

[Samurai Waki]

yeah. it's an inuendo to King of the Hill, where Dale Gribble uses a fake indentity known as...Rusty Shackleford.

[Devastatin Dave]

The damage isn't faked though, is it?

Not good journalism, but it seems they wanted "sexier" pictures than they could get without the Israelis killin them.

~:smoking:
So if it fits your agenda its fine by you. How "progressive" of you.

[Joker85]

So if it fits your agenda its fine by you. How "progressive" of you.

Didn't you know? The 'slippery slope' fearmongering is only ok when it comes to Phone DB'ing. Doctoring photoes about a war? No biggie, no harm no foul.

[edyzmedieval]

Meh, look at what the press is now. Misinformation tool, instead of information tool....

[Tribesman]

Well I never would have thought it , what is the world coming to ?
This is despicable , adding smoke and possibly duplicating buildings .
I want genuine coverage like we used to have , like the noble Tommy going over the top at the Somme , the Australians advancing at Alamain , the marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima , how about the poor little sea birds in Saddams evil oil slick or that muppet politician addressing a crowd of cloned troops .
Absolutely shocking.....:juggle2:

[Don Corleone]

Good old Tribesman. Anything to defend Hezbollah, eh old friend? You're like death and taxes... even doctoring photos is okay, as long as it protects Hezbollah. Don't ever change mate. Oh wait. Never mind, you won't!

[Tribesman]

Good old Tribesman. Anything to defend Hezbollah, eh old friend?
Sorry Don , you have completely lost me there , can you point out anything defending hezbollah there , as I seem to be unable to find it .

[Husar]

Lol. Does anyone remember Pally-TV? But that smoke pic is really funny because it´s so obvious and looks more like a joke.:2thumbsup:
We get to see all sorts of weird stuff in the news anyway...:juggle2:

[Don Corleone]

In the current situation, anything that makes the Israelis look worse in reality then they are actually behaving helps Hezbollah at the negotiating table, no? Saying that doctoring photographs is okay in your book, frankly, I find that surprising, and not in a good way. I would have thought more of you. If and when Israel gets caught putting doctored evidence out there, in such a 'in-your-face' way, I'll call them on it. I won't say "oh well, the Americans lied about raising the flag at Iwo Jima, so it's okay".

Or, to put it another way, if it was proven that Haaretz was publishing doctored photos making Hezbollah's attacks seem more savage then they actually were, would you really have such a blase attitude about it?

[Big_John]

Saying that doctoring photographs is okay in your book, frankly, I find that surprising, and not in a good way.i thought his post was just detailing how doctored media is nothing new, and how he was not shocked. but, c'est le backroom.

[Papewaio]

All photos that have been 'sexed' up should definitly say that they have been digitally manipulated.

Maybe with online photos we could get more information for instance:

Digital composite, sharpened, added. etc with definitions of each of the variations.

I try and use multiple new sources from multiple vendors. Reuters used to be considered a very good source to verify others againts. This really removes the journalistic neutrality of them. Which btw in a time of war would put them in my firing line if they were working for the opposition just like Goebbels would have been in it if I was in Allied command.

It is interesting though that we still hold journalists in high enough esteem that we get angry when they lie to us. As for politicians they have done so much damage to their reputations we expect it from them.

[Don Corleone]

i thought his post was just detailing how doctored media is nothing new, and how he was not shocked. but, c'est le backroom.

Congrats on the senior membership, chief. :2thumbsup:

As I said in my post, do you really think Tribesman would have a 'no big deal, happens all the time' attitude if it was Israel that got caught doctoring photographs of Hezbollah attacks to make them look worse?

[Reenk Roink]

Just to let you all know, Reuters immediately pulled down that picture and sacked the reporter when they realized the deceit...

Blame the reporter, not Reuters...

[Don Corleone]

Did Reuters issue an apology for not having better editing in place and allowing the doctored photos to go forward? But you do raise a valid point. My criticism lies with those who seem to be making the argument that it's really of no consequence, it happens all the time.

[Tribesman]

As I said in my post, do you really think Tribesman would have a 'no big deal, happens all the time' attitude if it was Israel that got caught doctoring photographs of Hezbollah attacks to make them look worse?

What you mean like the videos that turned out to be from a different date than what they were supposed to be and things like that ?:oops: But hey thats what governments do , its called propoganda , its just a bugger when they get caught out (like Powell did twice to his embarrasment:laugh4: )
Besides which Don , was this photographer hezbollah , or just another journalist ? If he is not a terrorist then what has it got to do with them , he is just another hack making money for himself .
You seem to be linking completely seperate issues and attempting to argue against a non-existant position .

BTW.....I won't say "oh well, the Americans lied about raising the flag at Iwo Jima, so it's okay".

they didn't lie about it , they recreated the event in a more dramatic(photowise) manner after it had happened .

[Reenk Roink]

Absolutely.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topnews&storyID=2006-08-07T162027Z_01_L06301298_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-REUTERS.xml&src=080806_1353_FEATURES_doctored_photos%3A_reuters_response


LONDON (Reuters) - Reuters withdrew all 920 photographs by a freelance Lebanese photographer from its database on Monday after an urgent review of his work showed he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hizbollah.

Global Picture Editor Tom Szlukovenyi called the measure precautionary but said the fact that two of the images by photographer Adnan Hajj had been manipulated undermined trust in his entire body of work.

"There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image," Szlukovenyi said in a statement.

"Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy."

The news and information agency announced the decision in an advisory note to its photo service subscribers. The note also said Reuters had tightened editing procedures for photographs from the conflict and apologized for the case.

Now to be fair, the reporter also has his side of the story, namely that he did not intentionally doctor the photos:


Reuters said that it has fired Adnan Hajj, the Lebanese photographer who submitted the image. The organization also said that it is investigating the incident. "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.

[Big_John]

Congrats on the senior membership, chief. :2thumbsup: thanks! it only cost me $50!


As I said in my post, do you really think Tribesman would have a 'no big deal, happens all the time' attitude if it was Israel that got caught doctoring photographs of Hezbollah attacks to make them look worse?honestly, no idea. although i doubt tribesman would be especially surprised by israeli shenanigans of any sort. btw, your analogy confuses me, hezbollah didn't produce the purportedly doctored photos, did they? i thought it was some independent lebanese photographer.

and as always, imo, we shouldn't hold israel to the same low standard we hold hezbollah.. unless we want to consider israel a terrorist organization (admittedly, it is hard to tell sometimes).

edit: btw, is your contest story any good? i haven't had time to read any yet. good luck! :grin2:

[Papewaio]

Besides which Don , was this photographer hezbollah , or just another journalist ? If he is not a terrorist then what has it got to do with them , he is just another hack making money for himself .


If someone is making money by supporting a terrorist organistation (by spreading propaganda on his own intiative and getting paid for it) then he or she should be treated as a terrorist and summarily executed. That would be a zero tolerance policy and far more fair then bombing houses from afar.

[Don Corleone]

As I said in my post, do you really think Tribesman would have a 'no big deal, happens all the time' attitude if it was Israel that got caught doctoring photographs of Hezbollah attacks to make them look worse?

What you mean like the videos that turned out to be from a different date than what they were supposed to be and things like that ?:oops: But hey thats what governments do , its called propoganda , its just a bugger when they get caught out (like Powell did twice to his embarrasment:laugh4: )
Besides which Don , was this photographer hezbollah , or just another journalist ? If he is not a terrorist then what has it got to do with them , he is just another hack making money for himself .
You seem to be linking completely seperate issues and attempting to argue against a non-existant position .

BTW.....I won't say "oh well, the Americans lied about raising the flag at Iwo Jima, so it's okay".

they didn't lie about it , they recreated the event in a more dramatic(photowise) manner after it had happened .

My friend, I cannot begin to address any specific claims you make any more, and therefore, I won't any longer. You refuse to cite instances, refuse to provide evidence, and then laugh at me (or whomever else) for being an ignoramus for not getting your obscure references. So I suppose, I'm just too stupid to answer you on the particulars, I can only answer you in general terms. But, you do at least have your own magnificence to keep you company.

Again, who benefited from these photographs? Do I suppose that your lack of condemnation for falsfication of journalistic photographs is in someway linked to your support of the organization that benefitted? :idea2: Maybe...

[Don Corleone]

btw, your analogy confuses me, hezbollah didn't produce the purportedly doctored photos, did they? i thought it was some independent lebanese photographer.

EDIT: (OOPS, included the wrong portion of the quote. Proper portion of quote here now).

I love this argument. You have no idea who is in Hezbollah and who isn't. Neither do I, and that appears to be the argument you're making. Well, I'm going to make the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck argument'.

If you post a bunch of doctored photographs to sway public support in favor of a terrorist organization, regardless of whether you hold a super-secret membership card or not, you just might be a terrorist.

EDIT: My story... A litttle too over the top with the soap-opera like drama then I usually do. I like more subtlety. But I didn't have much time.

[Big_John]

I love this argument. You have no idea who is in Hezbollah and who isn't. Neither do I, and that appears to be the argument you're making. Well, I'm going to make the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck argument'.

If you post a bunch of doctored photographs to sway public support in favor of a terrorist organization, regardless of whether you hold a super-secret membership card or not, you just might be a terrorist.not sure how this follows from my quote.. but anyway, the terrorist-status of the sacked photographer isn't really something i am curious about. maybe he is hezbollah, i have no idea. the issue i was addressing in your quoting was that for many people, myself included, the criminal actions of known terrorists (e.g. hezbollah) doesn't surprise me as much as the criminal actions of a democratic government, recognized by the world. i think it's fair to expect better from israel. conversely, expecting better from hezbollah is a bit.. unconventional.

edit: ok, i see your edit now.. but i was asking an honest question, is this dude that was contracted to reuters actually hezbollah? if i understand your position correctly, you don't think that matters. i guess it doesn't really.. but a more apt anaolgy would be an israeli photographer supplying doctored photos to haaretz, wouldn't it?

edit2: yeah, i rushed my story too.. i wasn't going to write one at first, but by yesterday evening, i couldn't fight the urge any longer :sweatdrop:

[Husar]

Dear Mr. Corleone, someone who doesn´t recognize the smoke on that pic has been copied should not bother with politics anyway.~;)

And calling Flares rockets is a real crime, but it gives a nice contrast to the usual "they have so super 1337 rocketz and missiles and gonna pwn youz....." often heard in countries with dictators or reports about the US forces.

Pally TV shows us shootouts where there are none, some American movie in cinema showed three different planes who were supposed to be one and the same.:laugh4:

All I´m saying is lies, false statements and overstatements concerning military and wars can be found everywhere.

Some media people seem to aim their stories at a stupid crowd of people who cannot think and I don´t know whether it´s done on purpose, maybe some don´t know better themselves.:juggle2:

[Pannonian]

My friend, I cannot begin to address any specific claims you make any more, and therefore, I won't any longer. You refuse to cite instances, refuse to provide evidence, and then laugh at me (or whomever else) for being an ignoramus for not getting your obscure references. So I suppose, I'm just too stupid to answer you on the particulars, I can only answer you in general terms. But, you do at least have your own magnificence to keep you company.

Again, who benefited from these photographs? Do I suppose that your lack of condemnation for falsfication of journalistic photographs is in someway linked to your support of the organization that benefitted? :idea2: Maybe...
Tribesman is referring to the fact that "real" photos and footage have been faked since their inception. The famous photos of Tommies going over the top at the Somme, striding through the dust and smoke (including officer with pistol) at Alamein, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, were all staged after the event. In the Iwo Jima case, they reenactors at least tried to make it real by having the same number of soldiers raise the second flag, but one of the originals commented on this recently. That kind of thing was taken as given in the past. It's only since Vietnam that we have begun to expect "real" photos to be actually real, from the time and untouched.

Tribesman might want to add the raising of the Red Flag on the Reichstag to the list. The meeting of the two encircling arms at Stalingrad was a bit obvious though.

[Tribesman]

Do I suppose that your lack of condemnation for falsfication of journalistic photographs is in someway linked to your support of the organization that benefitted? Maybe...
That is rather lame Don .:no:

[Proletariat]

Don's just being crazy.

Anyone who's read Tribes' posts here knows that he's very down the middle and inquisitive; always open minded and fair in every geopolitically concerned debate any of us regulars back here have seen. Stating that Tribesy comes to any topic back here with staunch preconcieved notions is just down right laughable, and not to mention shameful. To suggest that he'd be any more excited about this situation if an Israeli were to blame, is just not knowing your backroomers very well. Hmph!

[Devastatin Dave]

Uh-oh...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288406,00.html
Looks like AP is now doing some PR work for the terrorists. Why can't the liberals in the media, well liberals in general, understand that these folks would kill them (atleast after their "useful idiots" routine didn't benefit them anymore) just as quick as they would kill a Jew waving an American flag?:dizzy2:
Don't hug a snake, it will eventually bite ya...

[rory_20_uk]

But the building was levelled, so Israel is in fact donig the PR work.

Getting someone to electronically "pose" for a picture IMO doesn't matter. I'd guess that the people that lived there would rather Israel hadn't viewed their homes as military targets.

~:smoking:

[Duke John]

And likewise all those bloggers continue to posting stupid analyses like:

After analyzing the contradiction, the blog says: "Notice also the credit for the two pictures goes to two different photographers but they look like the exact same photo to me. One just has the buildings in the foreground cropped out. Was that done to disguise the fact that they are the same photo?"
Concerning these photo's:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2259/64/1600/rocketsfmhiz.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2259/64/1600/afprocketsfmisrael.jpg
Come on! There are clear differences: for example one photo has 2 rocket exhausts below the horizon, while the other has none. And it is not exactly uncommon that multiple photographers are standing at the same spot and take a photo of the same event.

How do these people expect to be taken seriously and not as frustrated conspiracy theorists? It's all the fault of the liberals, I'll tell you!

[Tribesman]

And likewise all those bloggers continue to posting stupid analyses like:

Hey you don't think all them stupid bloggers have loaded the same propoganda software do you .:eyebrows:

Looks like AP is now doing some PR work for the terrorists.
So Dave , is AP working for the terrorists ?
Errrrrrrr.......nope .
But hey if you don't like the journalism out there then sign up and do your own . It's really easy if you sign up for Megaphone , you can even avail of their facilities to flood polls with answers that you don't have to bother choosing for yourself , propoganda made simple for the "information" age .

[Xiahou]

Uh-oh...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288406,00.html
Looks like AP is now doing some PR work for the terrorists. Why can't the liberals in the media, well liberals in general, understand that these folks would kill them (atleast after their "useful idiots" routine didn't benefit them anymore) just as quick as they would kill a Jew waving an American flag?:dizzy2:
Don't hug a snake, it will eventually bite ya...
Here's an even earlier use of the same scene dated July 18.
link (http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=71469001&cdi=0)

And in related news:
Anderson Cooper of CNN flat out admits that Hezbollah is faking news stories and staging events for the press....
It's really interesting. I was in Beirut, and, you know, they took me on this sort of guided tour of the Hezbollah controlled territories in southern Lebanon that were heavily bombed. They don't have the experience in this kind of thing but they clearly want the story of civilian casualties out. That is what they are heavily pushing to the point where on this tour I was on, they were -- they were just making stuff up. They had six ambulances lined up in a row and said, okay, you know, they brought reporters there; they said you can talk to the ambulance drivers, and then one by one they told the ambulances to turn on their sirens and to zoom off, and people taking that picture, you know, would be reporting. I guess the idea that, you know, these ambulances were zooming off to treat civilian casualties, when in fact these ambulances were literally going back and forth down the street just for people to take pictures of them.
You can watch the video clip here (http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/08/09/video-charles-johnson-howard-kurtz-anderson-cooper-on-reutersgate/). It's in the last part of the short video clip.

[Banquo's Ghost]

And in related news:
Anderson Cooper of CNN flat out admits that Hezbollah is faking news stories and staging events for the press....

Y'know, time was when journalists tended to work out stories for themselves. I wonder if it is the pressure of 24 hour news that means they need to soak up whatever is presented to them? I know there was never a golden age of anything, but still...

Anyway, I doubt if the Israelis disdain the use of propaganda. Just seems that Hizbollah is better at it - easier of course for them, since they are 'the underdog' and the casualty list is higher.

That's why one needs to visit many sources to get some idea of the real picture (as Redleg so eloquently showed in a previous thread) even if they are presenting an opposing view that makes one's blood boil.