NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, the all-knowing and unquestionable mainstream media has done it again.

I find this smells like Dan Rather "journalism". Almost like Jayson Blair "journalism".

Not that blogs are perfect, either, but journalists today seem to be stooping to lower and lower levels in order to push their agenda.

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

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.

The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.

Note the odd patterns in the smoke - looks like someone was using the cloning tool in Photoshop. Amateur.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/LBN20_wa.jpg

Interestingly, the photographer who photoshopped it is Adnan Hajj, the same photographer who spent about six hours at Qana, photographing the SAME "rescue worker" pulling the "SAME" dead child repeatedly from the rubble and holding it up to the cameras (I can see recovering a dead body once, but not repeatedly over hours of time).

Looks like Adnan has an axe to grind, and is deliberately distorting the news for a reason, and Reuters lets him do it unless someone outside of Reuters catches him at it.

Odd that I can't seem to find anything on the web about this.

I do know that pics are touched up to make them suitable for printing...

I suspect this is a non story...unless one is saying that Beruit is not getting attacked...

Odd that I can't seem to find anything on the web about this.

I do know that pics are touched up to make them suitable for printing...

I suspect this is a non story...unless one is saying that Beruit is not getting attacked...

Ah, so cloning damaged buildings to make Beirut look completely smashed, and cloning smoke so it looks like the whole place is burning is OK with you.

As is repeatedly filming the same dead child being removed by the same rescue worker over and over and over again in the hot sun for over six hours.

It's not a non-story. Go over to Little Green Footballs and see how much the photo was doctored.

"Even I can see the very suspicious "clonings" of picture elements here. And I'm an idiot."

Pwned!

Looks like a Walter Duranty job. Although it's not the worst I've ever seen. This is the worst I've ever seen:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil.jpg
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cair4.jpg

The original: http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil2sm.jpg

Ah, so cloning damaged buildings to make Beirut look completely smashed, and cloning smoke so it looks like the whole place is burning is OK with you.

As is repeatedly filming the same dead child being removed by the same rescue worker over and over and over again in the hot sun for over six hours.

It's not a non-story. Go over to Little Green Footballs and see how much the photo was doctored.

I missed the bit about the buildings...I thought it was the smoke only...and that was a touch up...Btw...your emotive use of cloning smoke so it looks like the whole place is burning is OK with you' is a bit daft because the picture you posted only shows 2 plumes of smoke...obviously showing that the 'whole place is burning'. /sarcasm

If (and it seems they are) the buildings are cloned then yeah thats crap...but sometimes news orgs get tricked...but that still does not negate the fact that I cannot find any retraction being given by reuters on their site nor anywhere else. But at the end of the day if reuters pulled the pic that is all they can do...it does not mean there is some media campaign...mistakes happen.

With stories like this...and in fact most stories I perfer to await for another source to varify the story...and blogs are not a source for varification. They might point you to a reputable source but on their own blog do not cut it.

Re the 6 hours repeated filming...I cannot make a comment as this was the first time I have heard it mentioned.

Looks like a Walter Duranty job. Although it's not the worst I've ever seen. This is the worst I've ever seen:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil.jpg
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cair4.jpg

The original: http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil2sm.jpg

What was the context of that photo?

What was the context of that photo?

Some sort of faith unity day held by CAIR. Does it matter? They edited it to make it more "muslim."

Looks like a Walter Duranty job. Although it's not the worst I've ever seen. This is the worst I've ever seen:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil.jpg
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cair4.jpg

The original: http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil2sm.jpg

I don't know.....this one is pretty bad.....


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/whatchatalkinbout.jpg

Some sort of faith unity day held by CAIR. Does it matter? They edited it to make it more "muslim."

Well yeah, of course it matters. Who did the editing, why was it done? If a major news organisation used it and then backed it after the edit was pointed out then its a story, if a kid did it then stuck it on his blog then it's something to laugh at in an indulging sort of way.

Well yeah, of course it matters. Who did the editing, why was it done? If a major news organisation used it and then backed it after the edit was pointed out then its a story, if a kid did it then stuck it on his blog then it's something to laugh at in an indulging sort of way.

Thats the correct motorcycle!

Thats the correct motorcycle!

:confused:

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]Yes, the all-knowing and unquestionable mainstream media has done it again.

[QUOTE]

But Beirut is being bombed.

And why the fuck the idiot cloned smoke is beyond me, because in all honesty, the amount of smoke caused would not be a major factor in saying that Israel has acted excessively to my mind.

Interestingly, the photographer who photoshopped it is Adnan Hajj, the same photographer who spent about six hours at Qana, photographing the SAME "rescue worker" pulling the "SAME" dead child repeatedly from the rubble and holding it up to the cameras (I can see recovering a dead body once, but not repeatedly over hours of time).

Looks like Adnan has an axe to grind, and is deliberately distorting the news for a reason, and Reuters lets him do it unless someone outside of Reuters catches him at it.
Maybe his axe to grind is getting pictures sold. Oh, no-right, it's all an elaborate conspiracy...unless it's the right, then it's a coincidence. I forgot, my bad.

I suspect this is a non story...unless one is saying that Beruit is not getting attacked...

How about we were to imagine a picture of the ruins of the WTC which had been photoshopped so as to show buildings flattened for a radius of four blocks, instead of just two - would that also have been a non-story?

Odd that I can't seem to find anything on the web about this.

I do know that pics are touched up to make them suitable for printing...

I suspect this is a non story...unless one is saying that Beruit is not getting attacked...

Did you miss this link in the first post? :confused: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Point is not that parts of Beruit are being attacked, the point the news has deliberatly altered the truth and that sir is propaganda not responsible new reporting. :(

:confused:

menas yer right....

its a fuckedcompany.com saying

Did you miss this link in the first post? :confused: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Point is not that parts of Beruit are being attacked, the point the news has deliberatly altered the truth and that sir is propaganda not responsible new reporting. :(

Not the news, one photographer, Reuters removed it as soon as they found out.

I would say that it is a story, but isn't on par with Rathergate, as Rathergate was completely made up whereas this story is only partially so.

Maybe his axe to grind is getting pictures sold. Oh, no-right, it's all an elaborate conspiracy...unless it's the right, then it's a coincidence. I forgot, my bad.
This, combined with the fact that they won't release the actual digital timestamps of Green-helmet guy's photos, makes things awfully suspicious. Also don't forget the inflated numbers of Qana. What was it, upwards of 50, oh wait, that's right, 28 bodies counted. This is a major fuck-up by the news services.

Not to mention that the same photographer who doctored the photo(as I seriously doubt reuters would be stupid enough to photoshop it in house) is the one who snapped most of the pictures coming out of Qana.

How about we were to imagine a picture of the ruins of the WTC which had been photoshopped so as to show buildings flattened for a radius of four blocks, instead of just two - would that also have been a non-story?

But they just cloned the smoke, in one of those wonderfully pointless stupid acts that humanity specialises in.


the point the news has deliberatly altered the truth and that sir is propaganda not responsible new reporting?

The truth of smoke and the amount thereof. But yes, its not responsible and yes its dishonest. Jumping it up to propoganda though, is taking the piss.

How about we were to imagine a picture of the ruins of the WTC which had been photoshopped so as to show buildings flattened for a radius of four blocks, instead of just two - would that also have been a non-story?

I mean that it is a non story as it was a mistake that was rectified by reuters...unless one is saying that there is no attacking of Beruit....

menas yer right....

its a fuckedcompany.com saying

ahhh, I'l remember that one.

Did you miss this link in the first post? :confused: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Point is not that parts of Beruit are being attacked, the point the news has deliberatly altered the truth and that sir is propaganda not responsible new reporting. :(

Have a read of my post on page one where I responded to Deep Kimchi...I made a mistake in misreading his post.

I mean that it is a non story as it was a mistake that was rectified by reuters...unless one is saying that there is no attacking of Beruit....

That I agree with: provided Reuters follow up on the questionable picture and treat future submissions from the same source with deep suspicion, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

...of course, the idea that we are lied to during times of war is hardly a startling one.

This, combined with the fact that they won't release the actual digital timestamps of Green-helmet guy's photos, makes things awfully suspicious. Also don't forget the inflated numbers of Qana. What was it, upwards of 50, oh wait, that's right, 28 bodies counted. This is a major fuck-up by the news services.

Its part of the "fuck up" caused by instantaneous news. I remember figures of 9,000 or so for WTC, in the immediate aftermath. There was no agenda or propoganda there - just confusion and chaos. By the time persons account for the missing, add in injured that died, take off injured that were presumed dead and clear rubble to see precisely whats under there things usually shift. It could have gone up.

That I agree with: provided Reuters follow up on the questionable picture and treat future submissions from the same source with deep suspicion, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

...of course, the idea that we are lied to during times of war is hardly a startling one.

They suspended the photograher while they carry out an investigation into his actions.

Ah, so cloning damaged buildings to make Beirut look completely smashed, and cloning smoke so it looks like the whole place is burning is OK with you.
On the link you provided they also show the non-doctored version of the photo:

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/856455/LBN20_wa.jpg

Note the same building on fire, but with a slightly shorted column of smoke. While I'd agree that they shouldn't be altering photos, the altered photo doesn't make the situation look any worse.

Not the news, one photographer, Reuters removed it as soon as they found out.

So if they print something and then remove it, it isn't news. But if they print something and don't remove it, it is news? :confused:

That I agree with: provided Reuters follow up on the questionable picture and treat future submissions from the same source with deep suspicion, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

...of course, the idea that we are lied to during times of war is hardly a startling one.

What I do not understand is not being able to find coboration elsewhere....nonthing on the reuters site nor the other news sites...

I really think it was a mistake by reuters and they pulled it...its not as if its never happened before.

Deep Kimchi does make one pertinant point though....many of our modern day young journo's are seemingly incapable of investigating stories...they just swallow the Corporate PR hook line and sinker...

On the link you provided they also show the non-doctored version of the photo:

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/856455/LBN20_wa.jpg

Note the same building on fire, but with a slightly shorted column of smoke. While I'd agree that they shouldn't be altering photos, the altered photo doesn't make the situation look any worse.

Indeed. As I said, pointless stupidity.

But they just cloned the smoke, in one of those wonderfully pointless stupid acts that humanity specialises in..

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.

Of course, the source being an Israeli newspaper does make me want to check out some other source too... littlegreenfootballs gives us this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060805BeirutPhotoshop05.gif

Did you miss this link in the first post? :confused: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Point is not that parts of Beruit are being attacked, the point the news has deliberatly altered the truth and that sir is propaganda not responsible new reporting. :(One photographer and possible neglegience by people working at the picture desk. Not "the news".

So if they print something and then remove it, it isn't news. But if they print something and don't remove it, it is news? :confused:

You said that the news had deliberatly altered the facts with its reporting. I was pointing out that it was one photographer and not the 'news' as a whole. You seemed be implying that there was some kind of mass conspiracy.

But they just cloned the smoke, in one of those wonderfully pointless stupid acts that humanity specialises in.



The truth of smoke and the amount thereof. But yes, its not responsible and yes its dishonest. Jumping it up to propoganda though, is taking the piss.

If that wasn't done to promote the cause of Hezbollah, why was it done?:confused:

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

That I agree with: provided Reuters follow up on the questionable picture and treat future submissions from the same source with deep suspicion, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

...of course, the idea that we are lied to during times of war is hardly a startling one.

Don't news organizations have a responsibility to verify and check their sorces before they print a story of photo? Isn't that what responsible journalists are supposed to do?

If that wasn't done to promote the cause of Hezbollah, why was it done?:confused:

$

Ask yourself which will more easily find a buyer: a photo showing minor damage or disturbance during time of war, or a photo showing devestation and dramatic carnage?*


* the actual answer to this depends upon to whom you are attempting to sell the picture, obviously.

This, combined with the fact that they won't release the actual digital timestamps of Green-helmet guy's photos, makes things awfully suspicious. Also don't forget the inflated numbers of Qana. What was it, upwards of 50, oh wait, that's right, 28 bodies counted. This is a major fuck-up by the news services.As opposed to Bush's mistakes on Iraq's nuclear program?
As to the inflated numbers of Qana: Those were estimates from Arab channels which were taken with a grain of salt by most reputable news sources I saw. Referred to as estimates. Now, 28 bodies have been counted, and 13 more are missing. More people were missing before, but they turned up, hence the high number.

Not to mention that the same photographer who doctored the photo(as I seriously doubt reuters would be stupid enough to photoshop it in house) is the one who snapped most of the pictures coming out of Qana.Now as to the Hezbullah PR agent, most of those pictures were referred to as possible Hezbullah propaganda. However, they are also some of the only pictures there, so simply printing them is acceptable.

Don't news organizations have a responsibility to verify and check their sorces before they print a story of photo? Isn't that what responsible journalists are supposed to do?

From whence comes that responsibility? Certainly they may have a policy of fact checking, but it is the scoops, often unconfirmed, which will win them viewers/readers and give them the edge over their competitors.

If that wasn't done to promote the cause of Hezbollah, why was it done?:confused:

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some causeNote that that doesn't mean spreading falsehoods, just that you have an agenda for doing so.

If that wasn't done to promote the cause of Hezbollah, why was it done?:confused:

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

done to promote the cause of Hezbollah? For fucks sake....

Well, lets presume that it WAS propoganda. Some people, like myself, don't think that bombing Beirut, the roads in and out of it, and the fucking airport, not to mention the rest of Lebanon, is or was a really proportionate response to Hezbollah. Thats not a "pro-hezbollah" stance. Therefore, it is possible that somebody just thinks that a few hundred Lebanese dead is a few hundred too many.

However, I don't think was "propoganda" because it was too fucking pathetic, didnt make it look any better or worse than it was, and has no claims attached to it that arent true (Israel is bombing beirut). In fact, the damage looks far worse on the ground than it does with the various apartments in the way.

Are we happy now?

Don't news organizations have a responsibility to verify and check their sorces before they print a story of photo? Isn't that what responsible journalists are supposed to do?And they do. The Reuters Picture Desk is just as responsible for this.

As opposed to Bush's mistakes on Iraq's nuclear program?
As to the inflated numbers of Qana: Those were estimates from Arab channels which were taken with a grain of salt by most reputable news sources I saw. Referred to as estimates. Now, 28 bodies have been counted, and 13 more are missing. More people were missing before, but they turned up, hence the high number.

Now as to the Hezbullah PR agent, most of those pictures were referred to as possible Hezbullah propaganda. However, they are also some of the only pictures there, so simply printing them is acceptable.
And yet, they won't release the digital timestamps with the photos. I wonder why? Could it be because they would more or less prove that the entire thing was a fucking charade?

You said that the news had deliberatly altered the facts with its reporting. I was pointing out that it was one photographer and not the 'news' as a whole. You seemed be implying that there was some kind of mass conspiracy.

No, my point is; one photographer provided an altered photo to the new organization knowing it was altered for propaganda purposes. The news organization then printed it without verifying the source. That is irresponsible journalism.

I am glad however, they retracted the photo and I would hope they will have a talk with their editors and journalists about responsible journalism. We have seen too much of this kind of thing in the press in recent years. :(

And yet, they won't release the digital timestamps with the photos. I wonder why? Could it be because they would more or less prove that the entire thing was a fucking charade?To my knowledge, Reuters photographers aren't allowed to work on their pictures at all. Someone employed with Reuters would know this and just how much trouble they'd be in if it came out. A freelance photographer wouldn't necessarily take that to heart. It's more likely that Mr. Hajj is one of the latter, which could mean that they don't have the time stamps, or that they have been faked and they know about it.

Don't news organizations have a responsibility to verify and check their sorces before they print a story of photo? Isn't that what responsible journalists are supposed to do?

Yes, and has there not been a good few American journalists caught by the bollocks for making stories up over the last 10 years? What was their motivation? What were the editors doing over the period? Why were colleagues concerns ignored?

And what was going on with that Korean cloning research? Now that we're on the whole "checking" theme...?

And yet, they won't release the digital timestamps with the photos. I wonder why? Could it be because they would more or less prove that the entire thing was a fucking charade?

What "entire thing"? Is the whole attack on Lebanon being done in "Wag the Dog" fashion?

$

Ask yourself which will more easily find a buyer: a photo showing minor damage or disturbance during time of war, or a photo showing devestation and dramatic carnage?*


* the actual answer to this depends upon to whom you are attempting to sell the picture, obviously.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression the purpose of the news was to report factual information. :rolleyes:

Whereas others are hellbent on turning a molehill into a mountain..

I'm sorry. I was under the impression the purpose of the news was to report factual information. :rolleyes:That notion died with the "bombing" of the Maine in Havanna.

Now as to the Hezbullah PR agent, most of those pictures were referred to as possible Hezbullah propaganda. However, they are also some of the only pictures there, so simply printing them is acceptable.

So it is OK for "responsible" news agencies to print propaganda?

So it is OK for "responsible" news agencies to print propaganda?

If it identifies it as possibly being such then yes.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression the purpose of the news was to report factual information. :rolleyes:
No no, everyone wants everything privatised, so that means that the purpose of the news is to sell underwear and lawn mowers, and you do that by getting eyes, and you do that by having the most dynamic image, and you do that by buying the most dynamic image you can from the photographers there, and some of them get dynamic photos in a less than direct way. But if you're 30 seconds late getting that story on the web and on the air, they're getting that story from someone else who can now charge more to sell underwear and lawn mowers, so check fast.

Yes, photos can lie. But the Dadaists and Situationalists told everyone that 100 years ago, long before photoshop. So in that respect, I guess, welcome to the party-better late than never...

So it is OK for "responsible" news agencies to print propaganda?As long as it isn't a blatant lie, yes. Most responsible news agencies will add criticism of the source, if the only pictures available are those that were generated under dubious circumstances and may be exaggerated.

For instance, I don't find it wrong that the picture of President Bush delivering his speech on the aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner was printed, even though it was propaganda.

So it is OK for "responsible" news agencies to print propaganda?

But you still havent even shown that its propoganda. Why no flames for instance, with an Israeli jet overhead? Why not more buildings emanating smoke? Stick three of them together - its reasonable a large bomb could damage all three...yet all we have is fucking smoke...without fire, I reckon.

Yes, and has there not been a good few American journalists caught by the bollocks for making stories up over the last 10 years? What was their motivation? What were the editors doing over the period? Why were colleagues concerns ignored?

And what was going on with that Korean cloning research? Now that we're on the whole "checking" theme...?

I fully agree the American press has been very irresponsible. Perhaps that is one reason they are loosing readership.

What "Korean cloning research?" I don't know what you are refering to. :confused:

That I agree with: provided Reuters follow up on the questionable picture and treat future submissions from the same source with deep suspicion, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

...of course, the idea that we are lied to during times of war is hardly a startling one.
I think the better course of action for Reuters is not accept anything from this guy ever again.

Also, the guy really needs to learn some photshop skills. That attempt at faking was just shit.

Seems to me that Reuters got taken in due to the media's obsession with publishing as much carnage as possible.
"Oh...this photo shows one column of smoke! Pretty."
"Wait! This one has TWO! Use this one instead."

That notion died with the "bombing" of the Maine in Havanna.

:p

"Research by South Korea's top human cloning scientist - hailed as a breakthrough earlier this year - was fabricated, colleagues have concluded"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

What "Korean cloning research?" I don't know what you are refering to. :confused:
Korean scientist claimed he had successfully cloned humans.
He hadn't.
Big lie.
Minor scandal a few months back.

What "Korean cloning research?" I don't know what you are refering to. :confused:

this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4763973.stm

I think the better course of action for Reuters is not accept anything from this guy ever again.

Also, the guy really needs to learn some photshop skills. That attempt at faking was just shit.

Seems to me that Reuters got taken in due to the media's obsession with publishing as much carnage as possible.
"Oh...this photo shows one column of smoke! Pretty."
"Wait! This one has TWO! Use this one instead."The photoshopped pictures are hardly representative of the rest he's shot. Just do a quick search online. The fact that he has doctored pictures makes him unqualified for further employment, however.

I fully agree the American press has been very irresponsible. Perhaps that is one reason they are loosing readership.

What "Korean cloning research?" I don't know what you are refering to. :confused:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

:pNo, that's the reason why I don't refer to commercial channels (unless they're making a real effort to compete with noncomercial channels) for news. They don't lie, but they spin the truth to make it more interesting for their audiences.

...yet all we have is fucking smoke...without fire, I reckon.

Only way I know to that is mix dry ice with water :D

What's with the Zitat von thing? I know, you thought I'd never ask.:p

What's with the Zitat von thing? I know, you thought I'd never ask.:pI changed my forum language setting to German for the Hell of it ;)

I'm sorry. I was under the impression the purpose of the news was to report factual information. :rolleyes:
Have you never heard of the 'child's shoe'?

Most photographers carry round with them a child's booty.
Why?
Rubble is boring to film. How can you tell the difference between a house that's been destroyed due to earthquake, hurricane, bombs or anything else and a pile of bricks in a building site?
Answer: Put a shoe on top.
Suddenly you have a poignant, tragic picture.

Look closer next time at any and every shot of rubble. I guarantee that unless there's bodies being pulled out, there'll be a shot of a child's shoe on top of the devastation.


To make things clear: I don't mean to imply that every shot of rubble is a lie. The shots of devastation are true.
But rubble is boring.
To make it dramatic for the viewer, the filmer/photographer has to focus on something that we can identify with and find tragic. The idea of a child having possibly been killed is the hook needed.
So they will arrange personal items on the destruction in order to bring across the tragedy and horror of it all.

Ah, yes. All is well in Beirut. Everyone knows children are playing in the streets and Israelian jets drop only candy and flowers on civilians.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5054/1264/1600/bombs.1.jpg

The photoshopped pictures are hardly representative of the rest he's shot. Just do a quick search online. The fact that he has doctored pictures makes him unqualified for further employment, however.
Doesn't matter how good the rest of his pics are. Like drug cheating in sport, you get caught, you're out as far as I'm concerned.
Reuter's especially has a rep to uphold. They let this guy get away with it and no-one's going to trust them as a creditable news-source again.

Have you never heard of the 'child's shoe'?

Most photographers carry round with them a child's booty.
Why?
Rubble is boring to film. How can you tell the difference between a house that's been destroyed due to earthquake, hurricane, bombs or anything else and a pile of bricks in a building site?
Answer: Put a shoe on top.
Suddenly you have a poignant, tragic picture.

Look closer next time at any and every shot of rubble. I guarantee that unless there's bodies being pulled out, there'll be a shot of a child's shoe on top of the devastation.


To make things clear: I don't mean to imply that every shot of rubble is a lie. The shots of devastation are true.
But rubble is boring.
To make it dramatic for the viewer, the filmer/photographer has to focus on something that we can identify with and find tragic. The idea of a child having possibly been killed is the hook needed.
So they will arrange personal items on the destruction in order to bring across the tragedy and horror of it all.

You have just destroyed my image of the press as a noble profession. :(

Ah, yes. All is well in Beirut. Everyone knows children are playing in the streets and Israelian jets drop only candy and flowers on civilians.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5054/1264/1600/bombs.1.jpg

Bad link.

You have just destroyed my image of the press as a noble profession. :(
Hasn't been noble since Randolph Hearst took over the New York Journal .

And they got caught too, by American Bloggers :D Wonder what else they've doctored? From looking at the photo, it's plainly obvious that the smoke columns are doctored. If I recall correctly, Reuters is arab-owned..hmm..


http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/21713341257.jpg&s=f10

(For some reason I can't ever use the [IMG] function to link pictures. It doesn't work).




Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

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.

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.

The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.

In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

Too late, this has already been posted in another thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495032

You are late.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495032

yeh, stupid photographer and all, and it was a terrible attempt at photoshopping, and i'm all for journalistic integrity, but it's hardly scandal of the year, the pic is hardly changed at all and it doesn't make the catastrophe that this war is look any better or worse so i really don't see what the problem is.

yeh, stupid photographer and all, and it was a terrible attempt at photoshopping, and i'm all for journalistic integrity, but it's hardly scandal of the year, the pic is hardly changed at all and it doesn't make the catastrophe that this war is look any better or worse so i really don't see what the problem is.

It makes every other photo that photographer provided...and in fact every photograph Reuters uses suspect. Obviously, the vast majority of photos they use are undoctored and legitimate, but one will always have to wonder now which ones aren't.

It's a nasty shot to their credibility.

It makes every other photo that photographer provided...and in fact every photograph Reuters uses suspect. Obviously, the vast majority of photos they use are undoctored and legitimate, but one will always have to wonder now which ones aren't.

It's a nasty shot to their credibility.
It certainly affects the cred of the photographer, and possibly even his editor, since he should have caught it, but of Reuters in general? That's a hell of a stretch. You could make the same claim of dozens, if not hundreds, of other news outlets who got suckered by a rogue reporter or photographer. It's not like Reuters has a rep like Fox News, after all.

It makes every other photo that photographer provided...and in fact every photograph Reuters uses suspect. Obviously, the vast majority of photos they use are undoctored and legitimate, but one will always have to wonder now which ones aren't.

It's a nasty shot to their credibility.
oh well, i never gave journalists that much credibility anyway. they all have their own agenda. if they're stupid enough to use a badly doctored photo then they deserve less credibility but not much less.

Its like him and the other guy are on the same frequency, yet a few hours delayed....maybe every time zone has one.......

It certainly affects the cred of the photographer, and possibly even his editor, since he should have caught it, but of Reuters in general? That's a hell of a stretch. You could make the same claim of dozens, if not hundreds, of other news outlets who got suckered by a rogue reporter or photographer. It's not like Reuters has a rep like Fox News, after all.

Oh, by no means am I saying it's a legitimate or reasonable suspicion. But some people will wonder.

You have just destroyed my image of the press as a noble profession. :(its either the red or the blue pill.

stupid reporter - stupid editor

You have just destroyed my image of the press as a noble profession. :(


Ernie Pyle, the best of them all.

stupid reporter - stupid editor

Yep

Dude I duped.

I fully agree the American press has been very irresponsible. Perhaps that is one reason they are loosing readership.

I find your use of the word "loosing" instead of "losing" to be inaccurate and insulting. It's as if you are suggesting the media has held slaves and only just released them. This casts every post you've ever written into doubt.

If that wasn't done to promote the cause of Hezbollah, why was it done?:confused:

Interesting: so fabricated evidence to show that you are losing the war is promoting your cause? The reverse is normally true.

Interesting: so fabricated evidence to show that you are losing the war is promoting your cause? The reverse is normally true.
On the contrary. This isn't showing they are losing, it's showing just how much of an evil empire Isreal is.

But, you already knew that.

If you ever need to sell a photo... just add explosions. Explosions are also the best way to end books. Ties up all loose ends.

On the contrary. This isn't showing they are losing, it's showing just how much of an evil empire Isreal is.

But, you already knew that.

So, pictures of the devestation of the Twin Towers are US propaganda?

It's not like Reuters has a rep like Fox News, after all.

Right! After all, they are polar opposites. :rolleyes:

So, pictures of the devestation of the Twin Towers are US propaganda?
Deliberately obtuse?
It's fun watching people play stupid.

So, pictures of the devestation of the Twin Towers are US propaganda?

If they were doctored in an attempt to make it look worse than it was, yes.

If they were doctored in an attempt to make it look worse than it was, yes.

By this logic if the US were to grossly inflate its own troop losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be US propaganda...




(And yeah, I writ 'devastation' wrong in the other post).

I find your use of the word "loosing" instead of "losing" to be inaccurate and insulting. It's as if you are suggesting the media has held slaves and only just released them. This casts every post you've ever written into doubt.
Quality.

Right! After all, they are polar opposites. :rolleyes:
Well, they are. Reuters has a rep to uphold because they're not really end-users of news. They're a lot like the AP--they depend on subscribers (newspapers, magazines, tv news companies, etc.) to pay the bills and keep their operation running. Fox News only has to keep advertisers happy and worry about ratings. If Reuters gets a rep as a news company that'll give bad news regularly and embarass the end users, they'll lose subscribers. They'll wind up like UPI after Moon took them over.

You might try actually learning a little about how the news business works before you go shooting your mouth off and looking like a fool. I know there's the old saying about and old dog and new tricks, but I think that's crap--you're never too old to learn. You just have to be willing to give it a shot.

Doesn't matter how good the rest of his pics are. Like drug cheating in sport, you get caught, you're out as far as I'm concerned.
Reuter's especially has a rep to uphold. They let this guy get away with it and no-one's going to trust them as a creditable news-source again.


They already let him get away with it once. This time he was unrepentent and unapologetic when reuters needed someone who was guilty and sorry. He described his photoshopping as removing dust from the pic in poor light conditions.He left Reuters no choice but to accept responsibility or to make the guy an unwillingly guilty and thus make him an unreliable future source of pics. Reuters had to chose between Reuters credibility and a single photogs credibility. Any news photographer who elects to force Reuters into that choice can expect the same reasult.

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

I am glad that Reuters took the necessary steps to distance themselves from this photographer. Even if he does not have a political bias, he still has a poor handling of the tools of the trade.

Having said that, I followed the link from Deep Kimchi's OP:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
and at the end there is a link that discusses this photographer's involvement in other photos that were supposedly staged. It is a link to another article from the same (admittdly biased) news source:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284546,00.html
Note that this article does not mention the photographer Adnan Hajj at all, but merely reports on suspicions emanating from the blogosphere:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-this-man.html
This blog does not mention the photgrapher either. It merely shows a series of photos that allegedly were staged. The evidence, however, is flimsy at best.

Now, this is the first anyone can prove this Hajj guy is a lying putz. Reuters cuts him off as soon as it becomes apparent, taking full responsibility.

How does this prove, or even imply, the MSM conspiracy described in the OP?

Those aren't the same photos. Yes, one of them was badly re-touched, but the one is not a doctored version of the other. There are two photographs, two very similar photographs, one of which was shoddily re-touched.

I find your use of the word "loosing" instead of "losing" to be inaccurate and insulting. It's as if you are suggesting the media has held slaves and only just released them. This casts every post you've ever written into doubt.
Win.

How does this prove, or even imply, the MSM conspiracy described in the OP?The short answer is that it doesn't, not to anyone with any sense, anyway. But look at who you're talking about in this thread.

They withdrew a doctored photo (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060806/ids_photos_ts/r2549462231.jpg;_ylt=Ajh_RU5r49L4aA5cPBT3RsMDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4Y20zOW1jBHNlYwNtZXBo)of the Beruit skyline after it was pointed out in several places as being enhanced. Not only did the photographer add some more smoke, but he added extra buildings.

This all happened after the staged photos of in which a dead girl was used as a prop at Qana.

These kinds of errors are not why people subscribe to news services. If they make a mistake, fine, admit it and figure out how to keep it from happening again and again and again and... My thought is that Reuters, or at least their Middle East Bureau has some agenda that they are trying to promote.

There's already an active thread on this.. but I do agree that some reasonable minimum standard certainly went unmet by Reuters.. as happens pretty consistently with their organization.

There's already an active thread on this.. but I do agree that some reasonable minimum standard certainly went unmet by Reuters.. as happens pretty consistently with their organization.

Well, it pretty much proves the accuracies of those who have got pro-Arab viewpoints.

It could be the 'agenda' that there is huge pressure on news organisations to produce stories in a rolling news age.

This doesn't excuse their actions, but it does provide a reasonable explanation not so rooted in deep cynicism.

Are you guys serious with this shit? Three threads on it now, and each with a yellower title than the one before it. Are you guys subscibed to some sort of Talking Point TXT Message Marching Orders Circle or something? What the hell?

It could be the 'agenda' that there is huge pressure on news organisations to produce stories in a rolling news age.

This doesn't excuse their actions, but it does provide a reasonable explanation not so rooted in deep cynicism.

That, and most wire services and news organizations today do not employ their own staff overseas - in the old days, services like UPI and AP and Reuters had their own staff that they deployed overseas to be experts in specific countries.

Now, they rely on locals, and barely have any network resembling what they once had. Because most of their central staff is ignorant of the country in question, and they rely on the local to provide expertise, they have virtually no way of checking their own stories or pictures - virtually none.

It would be as though in order to get a story on Virginia, Reuters hired me to send pics and stories.

Can you imagine how biased the stories would be?

Wire services and news organizations just can't afford to hire Oxford-trained graduates to spend their lives in some backwater for life anymore - an "old hand" who can keep his perspective and send in good material that is balanced.

Just can't afford it. And the wire services have no way to check it.

Just one more point where I see little difference between a well-researched blog (where the blogger is relying on cross-correlating wire service reports and local information from local contacts) and a journalist (where they are relying on cross-correlating wire service reports and local information from local contacts).

Are you guys serious with this shit? Three threads on it now, and each with a yellower title than the one before it. Are you guys subscibed to some sort of Talking Point TXT Message Marching Orders Circle or something? What the hell?

Wazzamatta? Upset that the frontpage of this board points out that the pro-Hezbollah nooses is a bunch of lying sods?

Is Reuters pro-terrorist? WTF??

Is Reuters pro-terrorist? WTF??
Yeah, seconded. It's nothing particularly sinister, although certainly rather incompetent. Simply OMG ITS NEWS BECOS ITS MORE SMOKY hype.

Yeah, seconded. It's nothing particularly sinister, although certainly rather incompetent. Simply OMG ITS NEWS BECOS ITS MORE SMOKY hype.

The one thing I like to point out is that "journalists" and "official news organizations" seem to be no better at getting a story straight than some well-organized blogs.

Maybe less.

Are you guys serious with this shit? Three threads on it now, and each with a yellower title than the one before it. Are you guys subscibed to some sort of Talking Point TXT Message Marching Orders Circle or something? What the hell?

It's all a vast anti-Israel-US conspiracy, you know. Reuters is tricked by a photographer and retract the image when they're made aware of it, and decide never to have anything to do with the person again.

You can clearly see how Reuters is out to get them and supports terrorists. That is, if you have a persecution complex and an "either or, with us or against us" mentality.

Yeah, seconded. It's nothing particularly sinister, although certainly rather incompetent. Simply OMG ITS NEWS BECOS ITS MORE SMOKY hype.
It's making me wonder, 'What'd Bush do now..." This is a lot of crap to kick up about something pretty fucking stupid, starts making me thing Bush must have done something really fucking stupid that needs some distracting. Did a job report come out? What? Did he shoot Laura in the face with a paintball?

And for those who are going to say I'm stretching or being paranoid or anything like that, you're making someone trying to sell a more dynamic photo into a mass left wing conspiracy. For fucks sake...

It's all a vast anti-Israel-US conspiracy, you know. Reuters is tricked by a photographer and retract the image when they're made aware of it, and decide never to have anything to do with the person again.

You can clearly see how Reuters is out to get them and supports terrorists. That is, if you have a persecution complex and an "either or, with us or against us" mentality.

It's pretty obvious to me that they don't bother checking whether or not a series of photos is staged over a six hour period, with the same rescuer and same corpse being "rescued" over and over and over and over again.

Then the same photographer Photoshops extra buildings and smoke into a photo.

Reuters doesn't check what they receive. At all. Period.

Is Reuters pro-terrorist? WTF??

Have you ever heard of the Reichstag fire? Of course you have.

You know how it goes, the mongering (or monGöring, to make a horrible pun).

It's making me wonder, 'What'd Bush do now..." This is a lot of crap to kick up about something pretty fucking stupid, starts making me thing Bush must have done something really fucking stupid that needs some distracting. Did a job report come out? What? Did he shoot Laura in the face with a paintball?

And for those who are going to say I'm stretching or being paranoid or anything like that, you're making someone trying to sell a more dynamic photo into a mass left wing conspiracy. For fucks sake...
Hmm, I don't think so. Sure news outlets are biased, but they'll report unfavourably against anyone if it's news. Look at the Dick Cheney hunting thing, it was a simple accident (although a funny accident because it involved a famous person OLOLOL) and the news loved it. Bush doing stupid things is their lifeblood.

Have you ever heard of the Reichstag fire? Of course you have.

You know how it goes, the mongering.

BLING! And there we have the dots to connect:

Hezbollah: anti-jewish.
3rd Reich: anti-jewish.

It's making me wonder, 'What'd Bush do now..." This is a lot of crap to kick up about something pretty fucking stupid, starts making me thing Bush must have done something really fucking stupid that needs some distracting. Did a job report come out? What? Did he shoot Laura in the face with a paintball?

And for those who are going to say I'm stretching or being paranoid or anything like that, you're making someone trying to sell a more dynamic photo into a mass left wing conspiracy. For fucks sake...

It wasn't on CNN or Foxnews and still isn't.. so I doubt it. Something that occupies the afternoon of a few hundred blog-readers probably isn't a mass conspiracy.. :p

It's pretty obvious to me that they don't bother checking whether or not a series of photos is staged over a six hour period, with the same rescuer and same corpse being "rescued" over and over and over and over again.

Then the same photographer Photoshops extra buildings and smoke into a photo.

Reuters doesn't check what they receive. At all. Period.

Sure, sweety. You keep telling yourself that.

BLING! And there we have the dots to connect:

Hezbollah: anti-jewish.
3rd Reich: anti-jewish.

Yes, it's all a vast conspiracy. *pats on head*

Yes, it's all a vast conspiracy. *pats on head*

Nawp, it's a litmus-test.

Anti-jewish = sick bag of suck.

*fluffles Baguetten*

Nawp, it's a litmus-test.

Anti-jewish = sick bag of suck.

And we all know Reuters is but a colporteur of Holocaust II - Electric Boogaloo.

And we all know Reuters is but a colporteur of Holocaust II - Electric Boogaloo.

I don't know about that.
But I do know that they ain't exactly pro-Israel.
And that's all I ever need to know.

It wasn't doctored!
It was the landscape/skyline 2 days previously, you morons!
No one noticed because of all the destruction, thosebuildings were once there!:rolleyes:

But I do know that they ain't exactly pro-Israel.
And that's all I ever need to know.

Oh, you've made the narrow limits of what you want to know clear in the past.

I don't know about that.
But I do know that they ain't exactly pro-Israel.
And that's all I ever need to know.

*lol
Isn't it ironic? To keep with the Nazi references : The reason that Hitler was not only tolerated but actually supported by the governments of many if not most Western countries in the early and mid 30s was that "he ain't exactly pro-communism, and that's all we ever need to know"

am i the only person who is starting to question bogmarsh's sanity at this point? thats a conspiracy theory and a half. and the fact that its acceptible to label ANY altertanitve viewpoint as anti-semetic or neo-nazi is textbook paranoid schitzo.

reuters got fed a dodgy photo which they removed, apologised for and have blacklisted the photogropher. what else can they do?

They withdrew a doctored photo (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060806/ids_photos_ts/r2549462231.jpg;_ylt=Ajh_RU5r49L4aA5cPBT3RsMDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4Y20zOW1jBHNlYwNtZXBo)of the Beruit skyline after it was pointed out in several places as being enhanced. Not only did the photographer add some more smoke, but he added extra buildings.

This all happened after the staged photos of in which a dead girl was used as a prop at Qana.

These kinds of errors are not why people subscribe to news services. If they make a mistake, fine, admit it and figure out how to keep it from happening again and again and again and... My thought is that Reuters, or at least their Middle East Bureau has some agenda that they are trying to promote.

A large news org or service with employee's all over the world and with those employee's being sometimes " contract " or free agents...is going to have thesekind of problems..especially if they have gotten away with it before..Look at the reporting on hurricane Katrina..the media screwed up big time..but nothing but a few words ever found print..the event passed us by...but everyone will always remember the rapes and murders in the superdome ...and other events...that simply did not happen..fabrications sold as news...in this case for cash , because rapes and murders sell and no reporter was going someplace so unsafe to see for himself...:rolleyes:

In this case you have someone who may have a political agenda...but more likely knows damage and huge scale destruction sell as well as dead babies and children .

24 hr news doesnt allow much time for fact checking , although in this case a photo editor needs to find a new job ..unless of course he went with it deliberately ...then he needs a new career . I suggest working for Michael Moore or Hollywood .

am i the only person who is starting to question bogmarsh's sanity at this point? thats a conspiracy theory and a half. and the fact that its acceptible to label ANY altertanitve viewpoint as anti-semetic or neo-nazi is textbook paranoid schitzo.

reuters got fed a dodgy photo which they removed, apologised for and have blacklisted the photogropher. what else can they do?

Well, if you read my post, it's not an uber-conspiracy.

But...

It is a fact that modern news organizations have moved completely away from the model where all of their stringers and photographers are highly educated people from an original country (say, all from the UK, or all from Europe, or all from the US).

Now, news organizations rely on locals - whoever they are - to provide stories and photos.

The central organizations are, in any practical sense, incapable of verifying the stories or photos, and have to rely on trust.

So they print crap like this.

And there are those who say that no matter how well-researched a blog is, an official news organization is always better and unimpeachable.

Well, here we are with Reuters following in the footsteps of the New York Times (Jayson Blair, "I made all of it up" and Judith Miller, "There were WMD in Iraq").

A large news org or service with employee's all over the world and with those employee's being sometimes " contract " or free agents...is going to have thesekind of problems..especially if they have gotten away with it before..Look at the reporting on hurricane Katrina..the media screwed up big time..but nothing but a few words ever found print..the event passed us by...but everyone will always remember the rapes and murders in the superdome ...and other events...that simply did not happen..fabrications sold as news...in this case for cash , because rapes and murders sell and no reporter was going someplace so unsafe to see for himself...:rolleyes:

In this case you have someone who may have a political agenda...but more likely knows damage and huge scale destruction sell as well as dead babies and children .

24 hr news doesnt allow much time for fact checking , although in this case a photo editor needs to find a new job ..unless of course he went with it deliberately ...then he needs a new career . I suggest working for Michael Moore or Hollywood .

so when fox at al manipulate the news on the right, its ok. when the message is spun in a way the neo-cons don't like, they can be labelled anti-jew?

retuers made a mistake and immediately reacted to it and retracted the photo and cut off the source. far quicker than fox have ever reacted to bs they show. but the right jump up and down calling them anti-semites and pro terror?!?

liberal bias in the media my arse

*lol
Isn't it ironic? To keep with the Nazi references : The reason that Hitler was not only tolerated but actually supported by the governments of many if not most Western countries in the early and mid 30s was that "he ain't exactly pro-communism, and that's all we ever need to know"

It isn't ironic at all.
The moment you deal with anyone whose outlook is tainted with anti-jewish sentiment is the moment you know you're dealing with someone whose very existence is a most regrettable accident.
Cases is point: Hitler, Stalin.

It isn't ironic at all.
The moment you deal with anyone whose outlook is tainted with anti-jewish sentiment is the moment you know you're dealing with someone whose very existence is a most regrettable accident.
Cases is point: Hitler, Stalin.

:p :p :p

keep em coming, classic stuff.

anyone who is opposed to the IDF slaughtering kids is a commie-nazi!!!

fantastic stuff. :p :p

:p :p :p

keep em coming, classic stuff.

anyone who is opposed to the IDF slaughtering kids is a commie-nazi!!!

fantastic stuff. :p :p

Actually, anyone opposed to Israel defending itself against Hezbollah is an ass.

Actually, anyone opposed to Israel defending itself against Hezbollah is an ass.

what about people who see the reaction of the IDF as way beyond an acceptible level of 'defence'?

as maybe, but its a stretch from disagreeing with someone to labelling them all sorts of nasty things in public for having an alternative viewpoint.

in short bogmarsh accusing others of a totalitarian streak is too much to swallow. as showed up by west cabra

what about people who see the reaction of the IDF as way beyond an acceptible level of 'defence'?

as may be, but its a stretch from disagreeing with someone to labelling them all sorts of nasty things in public for having an alternative viewpoint.

bogmarsh accusing others of a toltalitarian streak is too much to swallow.


Oh, you don't need to be a commie or a nazi to be a sick bag of suck.

It's enough that you are pro-Hizbollah.

what about people who see the reaction of the IDF as way beyond an acceptible level of 'defence'?

Shooting at rocket launcher sites is perfectly within all international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the use of human shields (or any protected persons, such as UN observers) to protect things like rocket launchers from attack. What Hezbollah has done with women, children, and UN observers is a war crime.

It explicitly states in the Conventions that no one may assume that a site protected by human shields is immune from attack - that means, in plain English, that if you fire rockets from a small village full of civilians, it's perfectly reasonable for me to bomb the place - no matter who gets killed. Any deaths of civilians, per the Conventions, are the fault of Hezbollah.

Why don't you ask why Hezbollah started this? Kidnapping soldiers from within Israel? Firing rockets into Israel?

That, and most wire services and news organizations today do not employ their own staff overseas - in the old days, services like UPI and AP and Reuters had their own staff that they deployed overseas to be experts in specific countries.

Now, they rely on locals, and barely have any network resembling what they once had. Because most of their central staff is ignorant of the country in question, and they rely on the local to provide expertise, they have virtually no way of checking their own stories or pictures - virtually none.


O Fuck no. Not Foriegners reporting on Foriegners.....why can't they get those "force feed them prk"/"Islam ate my baby" types who have their own blogs write it all up...from America. And they can check it against other like minded fat assed bigots (and maybe skinny assed ones too).

And all this shite over a poxy badly photoshopped bit of fucking smoke? Grasping at fucking straws is what it is. "kill them all" one minute and "the Israelis arent really killing them all because the smoke was photoshopped" the next.

Yes, the all-knowing and unquestionable mainstream media has done it again.

I find this smells like Dan Rather "journalism". Almost like Jayson Blair "journalism".

Not that blogs are perfect, either, but journalists today seem to be stooping to lower and lower levels in order to push their agenda.

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



Note the odd patterns in the smoke - looks like someone was using the cloning tool in Photoshop. Amateur.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/LBN20_wa.jpg

note: i didn't read anycomment yet,but it looks like a soap story....
Or a brilliant work ,and only involve the public while fishing around,if the context was different it could become a joke like this one
Danger collateral dammage as well as critic could emerge from this one:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gaffeur/post-32-1093371229.jpg

It isn't ironic at all.
The moment you deal with anyone whose outlook is tainted with anti-jewish sentiment is the moment you know you're dealing with someone whose very existence is a most regrettable accident.
Cases is point: Hitler, Stalin.

You're not very good at picking up irony, are you?
England actually protected and approved of Hitler, using the exact same argument you are now using.
It's never advisable to approve of or dismiss anybody based on one single perceived attitude of theirs.

Oh, you don't need to be a commie or a nazi to be a sick bag of suck.

It's enough that you are pro-Hizbollah.

then why introduce hitler and stalin into the debate?

im pro children being able to sleep in bed at night without getting their legs blown off, and unlike you im able to criticise both sides in this 'war' because my morals arent as elastic as yours.

but in your little neo-con world criticism of IDF tactice = pro-hezbollah = anti-jew = nazi. thats because you are somewhere beetween a simpleton and a zealot.

And all this shite over a poxy badly photoshopped bit of fucking smoke? Grasping at fucking straws is what it is. "kill them all" one minute and "the Israelis arent really killing them all because the smoke was photoshopped" the next.

Actually the photographer, Adnan Hajj, also staged a six hour photo shoot where he had the same "rescuer" recover the body of a dead child in different ways over and over and over and over again.

They should have fired him then. But, they don't check facts, do they?

You're grasping at straws trying to say that Reuters is so credible, when it's blogs that caught them with their pants around their ankles.

Shooting at rocket launcher sites is perfectly within all international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the use of human shields (or any protected persons, such as UN observers) to protect things like rocket launchers from attack. What Hezbollah has done with women, children, and UN observers is a war crime.?

But Israel doesn't apply the fourth convention.


It explicitly states in the Conventions that no one may assume that a site protected by human shields is immune from attack - that means, in plain English, that if you fire rockets from a small village full of civilians, it's perfectly reasonable for me to bomb the place - no matter who gets killed. Any deaths of civilians, per the Conventions, are the fault of Hezbollah.


But Israel used human shields as official policy until 2005 and now does it unofficially.

Oh, you don't need to be a commie or a nazi to be a sick bag of suck.

It's enough that you are pro-Hizbollah.

So, in your view you can't possibly be anti-Hezbolla, but at the same time disapprove of Israeli methods?

Yep, you've no grip of irony whatsoever. And you obviously haven't learned much from European history in the last century.

But Israel doesn't apply the fourth convention.

But Israel used human shields as official policy until 2005 and now does it unofficially.

It certainly applies in the situation in Lebanon.

Hezbollah uses human shields officially. They bragged about it to Jan Egeland - to his face.

Actually the photographer, Adnan Hajj, also staged a six hour photo shoot where he had the same "rescuer" recover the body of a dead child in different ways over and over and over and over again.

They should have fired him then. But, they don't check facts, do they?

You're grasping at straws trying to say that Reuters is so credible, when it's blogs that caught them with their pants around their ankles.

Actually, I never bothered defending Reuters per se, because its not a fuck up of enormous proportions eg "Rathergate" as you yanks call it. He photoshopped smoke, because hes a fuckwit. End of.

It certainly applies in the situation in Lebanon.

Hezbollah uses human shields officially. They bragged about it to Jan Egeland - to his face.

I think anybody who tries to hold any one side blameless in this conflict can't be taken entirely seriously. And placing the blame never resovled a conflict

Oh, I can't wait to get WW II thrown at me again now...

It certainly applies in the situation in Lebanon..

Well, they refuse to apply it officially by order in the West Bank, when they go into Gaza, and in East Jerusalem. What makes you think they'll bother in the Leb?

Hezbollah uses human shields officially. They bragged about it to Jan Egeland - to his face.

Yes, as has been stated they both are a pack of bastards.

So, in your view you can't possibly be anti-Hezbolla, but at the same time disapprove of Israeli methods?

Yep, you've no grip of irony whatsoever. And you obviously haven't learned much from European history in the last century.

Though slapping it occassionally is encouraged, try not to feed it.

Though slapping it occassionally is encouraged, try not to feed it.

I know I shouldn't... but I'm bored

so when fox at al manipulate the news on the right, its ok. when the message is spun in a way the neo-cons don't like, they can be labelled anti-jew?

retuers made a mistake and immediately reacted to it and retracted the photo and cut off the source. far quicker than fox have ever reacted to bs they show. but the right jump up and down calling them anti-semites and pro terror?!?

liberal bias in the media my arse


Where the fuck did you get that shit from my post ?


Help me out here ?????

I know I shouldn't... but I'm bored

I slip occassionally myself. Its the wee divil in us all....

I think Reuters is simply incompentent, however there is a anti Isreal bias of varying degrees in the media. Any argument that puts Isreal and hezbollah at the same level isn't rooted in fact. Fact Isreal fires on hezbollah positions, it is not Isreal's fault that the positions are next to civilians. Isreal also apologises when civilians are killed. On the other side hezbollah packs its Katyusha rockets full of ball bearings designed to kill civilians and is over joyed when they do manage to kill an Isreali civilian.

I think Reuters is simply incompentent, however there is a anti Isreal bias of varying degrees in the media. Any argument that puts Isreal and hezbollah at the same level isn't rooted in fact. Fact Isreal fires on hezbollah positions, it is not Isreal's fault that the positions are next to civilians. Isreal also apologises when civilians are killed. On the other side hezbollah packs its Katyusha rockets full of ball bearings designed to kill civilians and is over joyed when they do manage to kill an Isreali civilian.
you just come around thinking it is a fight,
you just mist all other topics all around here, you think you just can say it,becauseit is not Isreal's fault
now after 9 post you have come to understand what a Civilian is,you make progress go ,outside and look for yourself:fluffle:


razz,razz,razz!!!!!!!!1

what about people who see the reaction of the IDF as way beyond an acceptible level of 'defence'?
What is an "acceptable level of 'defence'" if someone breaks into my house with a six inch knife what am allowed to use? Can I use a seven inch knife? 13''? What about a baton which is longer but has no blade? Of course the conservative (and my) answer would be whatever it takes to defend my self.

What is an "acceptable level of 'defence'" if someone breaks into my house with a six inch knife what am allowed to use? Can I use a seven inch knife? 13''? What about a baton which is longer but has no blade? Of course the conservative (and my) answer would be whatever it takes to defend my self.

There are already substantial legal and philosophical differences between what the typical US citizen believes is a proper defense, and what the typical European believes is a proper defense.

Legally, in many European countries, you either cannot defend yourself or you must never use anything more than what was used against you - and even then you are suspect. In many states in the US, if someone enters your property unlawfully, you can kill them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Jason Rosenbloom was shot twice during a dispute over how many garbage bags Mr. Rosenbloom had put out. The shooter was not arrested.

Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.

Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws. Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.

So one reporter is an unethical shithead and all of a sudden theirs a big anti-Israel conspiracy?

As paranoid as an anti-semite.

So one reporter is an unethical shithead and all of a sudden theirs a big anti-Israel conspiracy?

As paranoid as an anti-semite.

Reuters let him do something stupid like this - twice.

Twice is too many. They should have fired him the first time around, when he was staging the "rescue" of the same dead body multiple times over six hours.

Beirut is not getting attacked and Lebanese civilians are obviously not dying, a doctored image proves it. :rolleyes:

They should have fired him the first time around, when he was staging the "rescue" of the same dead body multiple times over six hours.

it is my understanding that this 'staging' is easily explained by the fact that right-wing nutjobs can't tell the difference between timestamps put by cameras on photographs and timestamps put by websites on news stories.

it is my understanding that this 'staging' is easily explained by the fact that right-wing nutjobs can't tell the difference between timestamps put by cameras on photographs and timestamps put by websites on news stories.

You understand more than anyone here.

it is my understanding that this 'staging' is easily explained by the fact that right-wing nutjobs can't tell the difference between timestamps put by cameras on photographs and timestamps put by websites on news stories.
And you can't be bothered to tell the difference in clothing worn by the "rescuer" during each "rescue", nor the difference in location the body is "rescued" from.

Of course you can't.

Reuters let him do something stupid like this - twice.

Twice is too many. They should have fired him the first time around, when he was staging the "rescue" of the same dead body multiple times over six hours.
Then they are guilty of incompetence, not conspiracy to MURDER ALL TEH JEWS!!!11!1!!

And you can't be bothered to tell the difference in clothing worn by the "rescuer" during each "rescue"

ah yes, "the foreign devils all look the same to me"

nor the difference in location the body is "rescued" from.

bullshit

What is an "acceptable level of 'defence'" if someone breaks into my house with a six inch knife what am allowed to use? Can I use a seven inch knife? 13''? What about a baton which is longer but has no blade? Of course the conservative (and my) answer would be whatever it takes to defend my self.
But how does defending yourself against that attacker translate into going around and razing the entire neighbourhood he lived at?

But how does defending yourself against that attacker translate into going around and razing the entire neighbourhood he lived at?

the best defense is a good atrocity

Reuters let him do something stupid like this - twice.

Twice is too many. They should have fired him the first time around, when he was staging the "rescue" of the same dead body multiple times over six hours.

You keep making this claim about the 'staged' rescue. When I followed the links you supplied in the OP, they did not substantiate your claim.
In fact, the photos were checked for veracity and no wrongdoing could be proven. Some people even wonder why someone would accuse the photographers or Lebanese of staging such a thing.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002949512

So the fact is that Reuters blacklisted this guy the first time he was caught. This seems like oddly responsible behaviour for an MSM conspiracy.

You keep making this claim about the 'staged' rescue. When I followed the links you supplied in the OP, they did not substantiate your claim.
In fact, the photos were checked for veracity and no wrongdoing could be proven.

which merely proves that its all a conspiracy by the space jews to make the less extraterrestrial jews look bad. the fact that the space jews covered their tracks so well is only to be expected. they are space jews, after all.

Looks like a Walter Duranty job. Although it's not the worst I've ever seen. This is the worst I've ever seen:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil.jpg
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cair4.jpg

The original: http://www.jihadwatch.org/Vigil2sm.jpg
That is Hil-Fucken-larious.

You keep making this claim about the 'staged' rescue. When I followed the links you supplied in the OP, they did not substantiate your claim.
In fact, the photos were checked for veracity and no wrongdoing could be proven. Some people even wonder why someone would accuse the photographers or Lebanese of staging such a thing.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002949512

So the fact is that Reuters blacklisted this guy the first time he was caught. This seems like oddly responsible behaviour for an MSM conspiracy.Speaking of staging a rescue (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/05/cityinruins/index.html)...
Geraldo Rivera arrives in a Fox News truck. An elderly woman with blond hair grips his elbow. She's wearing thick dark glasses and a pink shirt. He carries her small white dog in his arms. He's wearing thigh-high waders unzipped to below his knees. We shake hands. "Her relative called one of our stations," Geraldo tells me, explaining how that call went to another station, and then another, and finally to him.

The woman had been stranded in her home for six days. Geraldo picked up the woman and her dog and brought them here. The woman looks frail on his arm, though not as bad perhaps as a lady collapsed on a chair nearby, unable to move. Or a woman in a wheelchair being lifted from the truck, carrying her prosthetic leg on her lap.

"That's the second time he brought her here," one of the doctors tells me, nodding toward Geraldo.

"What?"

"They did two takes. Geraldo made that poor woman walk from the Fox News van to the heliport twice. Both times carrying her dog."

"Are you serious?" I ask. He says he is.

Speaking of staging a rescue (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/05/cityinruins/index.html)...
Yes, and it could be argued that Geraldo stages crap for his own self-aggrandizement, and not for any political reasons.

It's pretty clear that photographer Adnan Hajj was doctoring his photos for political reasons.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/godzilla.jpg

Yes, and it could be argued that Geraldo stages crap for his own self-aggrandizement, and not for any political reasons.

It's pretty clear that photographer Adnan Hajj was doctoring his photos for political reasons.

Of course, that's YOUR OPINION. You CHOOSE to percieve the two situations how you almost always choose to percieve them, based on which "team" you habitually root for.

Of course, that's YOUR OPINION. You CHOOSE to percieve the two situations how you almost always choose to percieve them, based on which "team" you habitually root for.

And you're rooting for Hezbollah? :rolleyes:

Of course, that's YOUR OPINION. You CHOOSE to percieve the two situations how you almost always choose to percieve them, based on which "team" you habitually root for.

And you CHOOSE to root for terrorishts and loosers
Winners don't hijack planes
WINNERS have airforces ;)

And you're rooting for Hezbollah? :rolleyes:

where the hell did you get that?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/godzilla.jpg

Root for Godzilla!

Yes, and it could be argued that Geraldo stages crap for his own self-aggrandizement, and not for any political reasons.

It's pretty clear that photographer Adnan Hajj was doctoring his photos for political reasons.

You're probably correct. I would also hazard a guess that Reuters blacklisted him for the same reason.

Nice godzilla pic, by the way. It neatly portrays the callous and horrifying disregard for civilian lives that both sides display with disgusting regularity. Consequently, I can not root for either side, so I hope for peace.

Reuters let him do something stupid like this - twice.

Twice is too many. They should have fired him the first time around, when he was staging the "rescue" of the same dead body multiple times over six hours.Reuters and other agencies reject the claims of staging, which might explain why they haven't fired him the first time around.

And you can't be bothered to tell the difference in clothing worn by the "rescuer" during each "rescue", nor the difference in location the body is "rescued" from.

Of course you can't.
If we're talking about the same pictures, the guy seems to be wearing the same navy blue t-shirt in all of them.

He does seem to put on rubber gloves in between carrying two different bodies, but other than that the only difference in the pictures is that he's taken his flak jacket and helmet off in one of them. And considering in that picture he's about to get into his ambulance I dont think you need a conspiracy theory to explain it.

And faced with the choice between the time stamps merely being wrong, or confabulating a scenario where a photographer has arranged in the middle of a war zone for a number of willing actors, an ambulance and a couple of dead bodies so he can photograph them over a number of hours, you'd have to be fairly desperate to show press bias to choose the latter. That's not to say that he didn't deliberately falsify the time stamps for some reason, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he posed the whole thing.