NationStates Jolt Archive

Or, how the New York Times just got busted - just like Reuters.

Details here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-busted-in-hezbollah.html

And, the confession from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

A picture caption with an audio slide show on July 27 about an Israeli attack on a building in Tyre, Lebanon, imprecisely described the situation in the picture. The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed.

The correct description was this one, which appeared with that picture in the printed edition of The Times: After an Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Tyre, Lebanon, yesterday, one man helped another who had fallen and was hurt.

Considering that the New York Times said that the man in the pictur was dead, and yet by the slideshow can easily be seen to be Not Dead, either the person writing captions is a fucking idiot, or they deliberately meant to mislead for a reaction, and were surprised when bloggers caught them.

It's called the Fog of War. Soldiers have been known to file incorrect situation reports as well, or else have them misinterpreted back in the nice safe cozy tents of HQ.

It's called the Fog of War. Soldiers have been known to file incorrect situation reports as well, or else have them misinterpreted back in the nice safe cozy tents of HQ.
The pictures were originally shown in series, and it's pretty obvious he's not dead.

So, there's one vote for "fucking stupid editor".

Lots of things get confused when people are at war

captions get written badly
UN posts get bombed
Civillians are killed

and all that other good stuff

The pictures were originally shown in series, and it's pretty obvious he's not dead.

So, there's one vote for "fucking stupid editor".
So of course it must be the entire New York Times' fault for one person's mistake. Clearly, they all tried to mislead and misinform us. Quick, let's burn down their offices!

The pictures were originally shown in series, and it's pretty obvious he's not dead.

So, there's one vote for "fucking stupid editor".
You know what the media boys are like. If they're not playing GI Joe Midlife Crisis Edition, dehydrated in the desert, they're in a high-rise assembing footage from incomplete notes, while recovering from a liquor and cocaine bender the night before.

Is it really such a slow news day that the right-winng bloggers are left with only this to get excited about? A fuckup by a photo editor? I mean, it's not as though there's a fake photo here or anything--it was a bad job of captioning.

Considering that the New York Times said that the man in the pictur was dead, and yet by the slideshow can easily be seen to be Not Dead, either the person writing captions is a fucking idiot, or they deliberately meant to mislead for a reaction, and were surprised when bloggers caught them.

No. The NY Times did not say that. They said:

Caption: The mayor of Tyre said that in the worst hit areas, bodies were still buried under the rubble, and he appealed to the Israelis to allow government authorities time to pull them out. (Photo Tyler Hicks The New York Times)

The Times is merely quoting the mayor of Tyre. It is the picture plus the original caption that is misleading. This is a misleading caption because it implies that the man in the photo is dead.

The editor who did not catch this should be reprimanded for shoddy work. Captions should not be used unless they relate directly to the photo and amplify the information.

Otherwise, conservative bloggers will misrepresent an honest mistake as a vast conspiracy by the MainStreamMedia.