NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5270118.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41995000/jpg/_41995244_bomb_launcher_203.jpg

This is a picture of a small boy, who was forced into the frame to be near a 1000 pound bomb.

I can certainly see the news value in photographing bomb damage, or a bomb sitting in someone's house.

What I cannot see is the news value of a kid in the frame who was forced to stand there. And I cannot see an honest, unbiased reporter taking such a picture, having seen the kid forced into the frame. Or, having taken such a picture, publishing the picture for the benefit of the party who arranged to have the child pose in such a dangerous place. Or, having published such a picture, said little to nothing in the way of commentary.

Sickening.

The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.

WTF? Um, yeah, I have to agree with the OP. It's an unexploded bomb, for crying out loud. If you can give me a description of how you took the picture with a "young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it" - don't take the fucking picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5270118.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41995000/jpg/_41995244_bomb_launcher_203.jpg

This is a picture of a small boy, who was forced into the frame to be near a 1000 pound bomb.

I can certainly see the news value in photographing bomb damage, or a bomb sitting in someone's house.

What I cannot see is the news value of a kid in the frame who was forced to stand there. And I cannot see an honest, unbiased reporter taking such a picture, having seen the kid forced into the frame. Or, having taken such a picture, publishing the picture for the benefit of the party who arranged to have the child pose in such a dangerous place. Or, having published such a picture, said little to nothing in the way of commentary.

Sickening.
Do we know for a fact that a BBC photographer took the shot? In some cases local photographers take pictures and video and submit them to major news outlets.

Do we know for a fact that a BBC photographer took the shot? In some cases local photographers take pictures and video and submit them to major news outlets.
They can read at the BBC, right?

Do we know for a fact that a BBC photographer took the shot? In some cases local photographers take pictures and video and submit them to major news outlets.
Read the link.

They admit it.

When Um Ali Mihdi returned to her home in the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil two days ago, she found a 1,000lb (450kg) Israeli bomb lying unexploded in her living room.

The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.

What I cannot see is the news value of a kid in the frame who was forced to stand there. And I cannot see an honest, unbiased reporter taking such a picture, having seen the kid forced into the frame. Or, having taken such a picture, publishing the picture for the benefit of the party who arranged to have the child pose in such a dangerous place. Or, having published such a picture, said little to nothing in the way of commentary.
It said he was reluctantly forced to stand next to it - isn't that enough? Would you rather it said "Our Hezbollah cameraman forced an innocent child to stand next to a bomb for the latest propaganda for the BBC (a wholy owned subsidiary of Al Jazeera)"?

WTF? Um, yeah, I have to agree with the OP. It's an unexploded bomb, for crying out loud. If you can give me a description of how you took the picture with a "young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it" - don't take the fucking picture.
They wanted to take the picture, someone then pushed the boy into frame. How would then not taking it make a difference?

It said he was reluctantly forced to stand next to it - isn't that enough? Would you rather it said "Our Hezbollah cameraman forced an innocent child to stand next to a bomb for the latest propaganda for the BBC (a wholy owned subsidiary of Al Jazeera)"?

They could have refused to take the picture. Gone away.

what.... the.... hell

My bad. I didn't bother to read it.

No one seems to mind the fact that a civilian house has an Israeli 1,000lb fucking bomb in its living room? Jesus, talk about not mentioning the elephant in the corner....

Considering Bint Jbeil is a traditional stronghold of Hezb'allah (the IDF had to re-take the town several times suffering heavy losses), what makes you think the journalists aren't being "escorted" by fighters?

You're all alone deep inside hostile territory and you're going to start spouting your mouth off? Please.

I find it despicable that the kid was pushed into the room- however I don't blame the journalists for that. One can imagine there are many unexploded ordinance that civilians have to tread around without the presence of the media there.

No one seems to mind the fact that a civilian house has an Israeli 1,00olb fucking bomb in its living room? Jesus, talk about not mentioning the elephant in the corner....

Considering Bint Jbeil is a traditional stronghold of Hezb'allah (the IDF had to re-take the town several times suffering heavy losses), what makes you think the journalists aren't being "escorted" by fighters?

You're all alone deep inside hostile territory and you're going to start spouting your mouth off? Please.

I find it despicable that the kid was pushed into the room- however I don't blame the journalists for that. One can imagine there are many unexploded ordinance that civilians have to tread around without the presence of the media there.

You may read the OP - I'm not disputing the point that a 1000-lb bomb is in a house.

The reporters and photographers didn't have to say anything. They could just not take the pictures.

You may read the OP - I'm not disputing the point that a 1000-lb bomb is in a house.

The reporters and photographers didn't have to say anything. They could just not take the pictures.
How would that have changed the situation of many, many, many Lebanese families? They have to live amongst these ordinances until the clean up crews arrive.

If you can't see it, it's not happening eh?

How would that have changed the situation of many, many, many Lebanese families? They have to live amongst these ordinances until the clean up crews arrive.

If you can't see it, it's not happening eh?

I'm sure there are plenty of pics of unexploded ordnance that could be taken.

Without pushing a kid into the frame.

It said he was reluctantly forced to stand next to it - isn't that enough? Would you rather it said "Our Hezbollah cameraman forced an innocent child to stand next to a bomb for the latest propaganda for the BBC (a wholy owned subsidiary of Al Jazeera)"?
Oh, I don't think it was "their Hezbollah cameraman". I mean, it certainly sounds like it was his family who wanted him to stand by the bomb to be in the picture, which is why this:
They wanted to take the picture, someone then pushed the boy into frame. How would then not taking it make a difference?
would indeed have made a difference.

If they wouldn't have been there to take a picture, the boy wouldn't have been pushed next to the bomb in the first place. And they could easily have said "Um, you know, I don't exactly want that kid in there, take him outside and then I'll take the picture"

But that's not even mainly what I meant. I meant that if you start an article by describing how the kid was pushed unwillingly into the frame so you could take his picture - maybe then it should occur to you that taking (or publishing) that pic isn't going to shine a favourable light on your judgement capabilities.

I could put it another way.

If various photographers were being used as complete tools by, say, the US military, and they were deliberately staging photos to make insurgents look bad, I'm sure you would be screaming that the photographers should stop covering the US military.

Sure, they're standing around with guns and all, too.

Maybe if the Hezbollah found out that no one would cover their story if they push kids next to bombs, they would stop doing it.

They could have refused to take the picture. Gone away.
The kid would still have been pushed into the frame before they refuse to take it - how does then not taking it make any difference?

I'm sure there are plenty of pics of unexploded ordnance that could be taken.

Without pushing a kid into the frame.

I'm sure there are. But that belies the dangers of living there doesn't it?

"Oh well look, no one's there. They've left. It must not be as bad as the media says it is".

Again, I blame the "escorts", not the journalists.

Especially in Bint Jbeil- As he takes around his three-storey house, Mr Dabaja warns us to be careful of an anti-personnel mine fitted with a tipping device that the Israeli troops left near the front door.
Whether its IDF or Hezb'allah is beside the point- these people have to live amongst unexploded ordinance.

The kid (pushed in the picture or not) is going to be living around that bomb long after the media leaves. The danger doesn't stop for him.

The kid would still have been pushed into the frame before they refuse to take it - how does then not taking it make any difference?
If you find out that the foreign journalists are leaving for good and not coming back to cover your story anymore, you'll wise up and never do that again.

If you find out that the foreign journalists are leaving for good and not coming back to cover your story anymore, you'll wise up and never do that again.
...which doesn't detract from the fact that regardless of the media presence- these people still have to live amongst unexploded ordinance.

If you can't see it, its not happening. The visual equivulant of "earmuffs".

I had to read this a couple times to believe what I was reading:
The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity. If you did this in your home here you would go to prison for child endangerment.

...which doesn't detract from the fact that regardless of the media presence- these people still have to live amongst unexploded ordinance.

If you can't see it, its not happening. The visual equivulant of "earmuffs".

I'm sure the picture of a bomb in a living room is quite enough to demonstrate that people live amongst it.

The child is completely unnecessary, and morally outrageous.

I'm sure the picture of a bomb in a living room is quite enough to demonstrate that people live amongst it.
Honestly, in this day and age of "shocking news"- I don't think it is. We're only talking about the situation because its "shocking" right?

If the picture was just of "a big bomb in a room" it would garner 0% of the attention this is receiving- and you know it.


The child is completely unnecessary, and morally outrageous.
Yes, I agree.

It sounds as if everyone is surprised that the news media is unscrupulous and would take advantage of children if it will make headlines. How often do people actually think as to whether photos are staged or taken in... questionable circumstances.

I'm sure the picture of a bomb in a living room is quite enough to demonstrate that people live amongst it.
So should the journalists have forceably removed the child?

So should the journalists have forceably removed the child?
No, they should have not taken the picture, packed up, and left.

Later, when they were in a safe area, after recalling all their other journalists and photographers, they should have notified Hezbollah that until such time as the pictures can be taken freely, and without having kids pushed into the picture, the BBC will not be airing a damn thing about their plight, however bad it might be.

Later, when they were in a safe area, after recalling all their other journalists and photographers, they should have notified Hezbollah that until such time as the pictures can be taken freely, and without having kids pushed into the picture, the BBC will not be airing a damn thing about their plight, however bad it might be.
I think a news agency that stupid would rapidly lose all its viewers to a news agency that actually covers the news.

I think a news agency that stupid would rapidly lose all its viewers to a news agency that actually covers the news.
No, they wouldn't lose its viewers to news agencies that have no integrity, and are glad to rehash propaganda.

No, they wouldn't lose its viewers to news agencies that have no integrity, and are glad to rehash propaganda.

Name a news agency that fits this criteria.

No, they wouldn't lose its viewers to news agencies that have no integrity, and are glad to rehash propaganda.
Refusing to report a story at all just because people are trying to manipulate the media doesn't meet my definition of journalistic integrity.

I surprised they just didn't photoshop the kid and maybe his whole family just emphasise the point.

Name a news agency that fits this criteria.
The AP is glad to publish photo after photo of "cars attacked and destroyed by aircraft" which obviously have never been attacked by anything worse than a sledgehammer.

The AP is glad to publish photo after photo of "cars attacked and destroyed by aircraft" which obviously have never been attacked by anything worse than a sledgehammer.

No, should have been clearer. I want you to name a news agency that has integrity and has at no point reported propaganda for either side in this war.

No, should have been clearer. I want you to name a news agency that has integrity and has at no point reported propaganda for either side in this war.
That's the problem I'm pointing out. None of them have any.

Some people believe that perhaps the BBC, or perhaps Reuters would have had some.

But they seem to be running away from journalistic integrity as fast as possible.

I'm not alone in this opinion. And it is destroying the reputation of any journalists who might still feel integrity is something worth preserving.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019475

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5270118.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41995000/jpg/_41995244_bomb_launcher_203.jpg

This is a picture of a small boy, who was forced into the frame to be near a 1000 pound bomb.

I can certainly see the news value in photographing bomb damage, or a bomb sitting in someone's house.

What I cannot see is the news value of a kid in the frame who was forced to stand there. And I cannot see an honest, unbiased reporter taking such a picture, having seen the kid forced into the frame. Or, having taken such a picture, publishing the picture for the benefit of the party who arranged to have the child pose in such a dangerous place. Or, having published such a picture, said little to nothing in the way of commentary.

Sickening.


How do you know he was forced into it? They could have paid him. But it is incredibly wrong to do such a thing. Whatever about them dying (the photographers) children are another story.

News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school. Admit mistakes right away. Correct them with as much fanfare and surface area as you devoted to the original image. Create task forces and investigating panels. Don’t delete archives but publish them along with detailed descriptions of what went wrong. Attend to your critics and diversify the sources of imagery, or better yet be brave enough to refuse to show any images of scenes in which you are being told what to show. I would even love to see special inserts or mini-documentaries on how to spot photo bias or photo fakery—in other words, be as transparent, unarrogant, and responsive as you expect those you cover to be.

The first option seems to be the one some of you prefer we take.

That's the problem I'm pointing out. None of them have any.

Some people believe that perhaps the BBC, or perhaps Reuters would have had some.

But they seem to be running away from journalistic integrity as fast as possible.

I'm not alone in this opinion. And it is destroying the reputation of any journalists who might still feel integrity is something worth preserving.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019475

And I don't see what any of this has to do with the BBC article in question. The articles states that the photo is staged in the second paragraph. You can use this article to question the morals of the BBC for priting the photo but you can't use this article to question its' journalistic ethics, they are nothing but honest about the situation surrounding the taking of the photo.

And I don't see what any of this has to do with the BBC article in question. The articles states that the photo is staged in the second paragraph. You can use this article to question the morals of the BBC for priting the photo but you can't use this article to question its' journalistic ethics, they are nothing but honest about the situation surrounding the taking of the photo.

They shouldn't involve themselves in promulgating further propaganda.

It's unethical and immoral, and very unjournalistic.

Or maybe today, everyone is from the Eason Jordan School of Journalism.

They shouldn't involve themselves in promulgating further propaganda.

It's unethical and immoral, and very unjournalistic.

Or maybe today, everyone is from the Eason Jordan School of Journalism.

They aren't. They are taking photos of the current situation in Southern Lebanon and reporting them and when the situation is anything less than exactly how it should be they are making sure we are aware of the fact through the article.

Whether or not you like the message is besides the point, that is the situation in that area and children will be around unexploded ordinance whether the BBC is there or not.

They aren't. They are taking photos of the current situation in Southern Lebanon and reporting them and when the situation is anything less than exactly how it should be they are making sure we are aware of the fact through the article.

Whether or not you like the message is besides the point, that is the situation in that area and children will be around unexploded ordinance whether the BBC is there or not.

They were a party to an act of propaganda. They should have packed up and left.

How else do you think Hezbollah will get the hint that pushing kids in front of bombs and implicitly threatening photographers to make them take the right photos is the wrong thing?

You obviously don't give a flying shit about the profession of journalism or journalistic photography. You're more concerned with reprinting hash for money.

They aren't. They are taking photos of the current situation in Southern Lebanon and reporting them and when the situation is anything less than exactly how it should be they are making sure we are aware of the fact through the article.

Whether or not you like the message is besides the point, that is the situation in that area and children will be around unexploded ordinance whether the BBC is there or not.

Yeah, they will be... but not that child, if he had a say in it, otherwise he wouldn't need to be "pushed" to get close to it.

Just because children get close to ordinance doesn't mean making it happen is OK, otherwise you may as well say, "Well, children get raped and killed every day whether the BBC is there or not, so the BBC raping and killing children doesn't matter."

Hi there "sedation ministry".

Wouldn't it be more important to focus on the fact that theres a 1,000 lb bomb in a civillian home?
I already addressed that.

I'm sure there are plenty of pics of unexploded ordnance that could be taken.

Without pushing a kid into the frame.

Hi there "sedation ministry".

Wouldn't it be more important to focus on the fact that theres a 1,000 lb bomb in a civillian home?

They were a party to an act of propaganda. They should have packed up and left.

Afact that was acknoledged in the article, allowing people to draw their own conclusions from the image. In this case it probably does more damage than good to hezbollhs cause, pushing kids near bombs won't win them any friends among westeners.

How else do you think Hezbollah will get the hint that pushing kids in front of bombs and implicitly threatening photographers to make them take the right photos is the wrong thing?

This is a terrorist organisation that you have denounced at every available opportunity on these forums, do you really think that a few BBC journos not taking a photo will make them change their ways? There will still be agencies willing to take the shot and they may not have the integrity to let their readers know that the shot was taken under duress.

You obviously don't give a flying shit about the profession of journalism or journalistic photography. You're more concerned with reprinting hash for money.

And you obviously only want the side of the story you approve of being reported. The news agencies don't exist to act as censors on the news coming out of a region, it is up to the reader to make an informed opinion on what they see.

I'm sure the picture of a bomb in a living room is quite enough to demonstrate that people live amongst it.

The child is completely unnecessary, and morally outrageous.

Pushing it aren't you? Putting the bomb there might deserve such rhetoric but you're going over the top here. After all, its not like a bomb that size would spare the photographer either.

Pushing it aren't you? Putting the bomb there might deserve such rhetoric but you're going over the top here. After all, its not like a bomb that size would spare the photographer either.
Reporters and photographers take risks.

It's not ethical or moral to push the kid in there, nor is it ethical or moral to take the picture they want with the kid in it.

Reporters and photographers take risks.

It's not ethical or moral to push the kid in there, nor is it ethical or moral to take the picture they want with the kid in it.

No, it isn't ethical or moral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5270118.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41995000/jpg/_41995244_bomb_launcher_203.jpg

This is a picture of a small boy, who (Blah.. Blah.. Anti-BBC... Blah.. Blah.. Anti-Arab.. Pro-Jewish propaganda.. Blah.. Blah...)BBC is better than any US network. (less bias makes for better Journalism)

its not even close.

No, it isn't ethical or moral.

many jobs aren't....

many jobs aren't....
Some claim to have a significant element of integrity however.

Which I no longer accord to any journalist or news photographer.

Some claim to have a significant element of integrity however.

I would think most would claim that.

Which I no longer accord to any journalist or news photographer.

So you'll on be only participating in threads about your immediate community?

That'll be nice for you (you get to post about your locale)....and boring for the rest of us (Smallsville USA gets very boring very quickly...oddly just like Mini Village UK does).

So you'll on be only participating in threads about your immediate community?

That'll be nice for you (you get to post about your locale)....and boring for the rest of us (Smallsville USA gets very boring very quickly...oddly just like Mini Village UK does).

No. It means that it's open season on journalists, in terms of bashing their stories.

No. It means that it's open season on journalists, in terms of bashing their stories.
Wait.... is wasn't anyway? :confused: :D

Wait.... is wasn't anyway? :confused: :D
Right now, I don't see any news organizations as having any more credibility than any blog. At all.

so one news organization is dispicable for accepting photographs and printing them to use as a lie making the photographer look like a hero and another news organization is dispicable for accepting photographs and disclosing all the information regarding that photograph even if it makes the photographer look like an ass?

Where is the BIAS here? BBC being truthful or OP being an ass towards the BBC for being truthful.

so one news organization is dispicable for accepting photographs and printing them to use as a lie making the photographer look like a hero and another news organization is dispicable for accepting photographs and disclosing all the information regarding that photograph even if it makes the photographer look like an ass?

Where is the BIAS here? BBC being truthful or OP being an ass towards the BBC for being truthful.

DK doesn't like the BBC because it doesn't always agree with his world view.

No. It means that it's open season on journalists, in terms of bashing their stories.

Ok then. Bash away.

DK doesn't like the BBC because it doesn't always agree with his world view.


I know - there are a couple biased journalists/photographers/editors doing something unethical so now ALL journalists/photographers/editors are unethical and it's open season on them.

Not like I'm not used to him seeing the world in black and white terms and shades of gray being non-existant

- well at least on the liberal side of things -

it's also no surprise that he doesnt hold the same black/white views for Republicans or Military men - we've seen plenty of dispicable things done by both (and I mean PLENTY *WAY WORSE THAN ANY JOURNALIST EVER DID*) yet he'll defend most of them at every turn. Why isn't it open season on them as well?

Possibly if the cameramen refused to take pictures of children pushed next to unexploded ordnance then those who are pushing kids next to unexploded ordnance for media whoring and propaganda purposes might quit pushing kids next to unexploded ordnance. That would be a positive change.
Ah, thus removing all unexploded ordinance from civilian areas right...?

Oh....

How would that have changed the situation of many, many, many Lebanese families? They have to live amongst these ordinances until the clean up crews arrive.

If you can't see it, it's not happening eh?

Possibly if the cameramen refused to take pictures of children pushed next to unexploded ordnance then those who are pushing kids next to unexploded ordnance for media whoring and propaganda purposes might quit pushing kids next to unexploded ordnance. That would be a positive change.

so one news organization is dispicable for accepting photographs and printing them to use as a lie making the photographer look like a hero and another news organization is dispicable for accepting photographs and disclosing all the information regarding that photograph even if it makes the photographer look like an ass?

Where is the BIAS here? BBC being truthful or OP being an ass towards the BBC for being truthful.

Printing the picture is the second choice (after taking the photo) that gets those who pushed the kid up next to the bomb what they wanted. Shocking pictures of kids next to bombs in legit widely distributed media.

Printing the picture is the second choice (after taking the photo) that gets those who pushed the kid up next to the bomb what they wanted. Shocking pictures of kids next to bombs in legit widely distributed media.

Yep, right next to and article that tells you that was the situation and allows you to condemn Hezbollah for it.

Tell me again how this is good publicity for hezbollah?

Printing the picture is the second choice (after taking the photo) that gets those who pushed the kid up next to the bomb what they wanted. Shocking pictures of kids next to bombs in legit widely distributed media.

So the BBC shouldnt print pictures they receive of kids being near 1000 lb bombs because it encourages other photographers to take pictures of kids next to bombs? Sorry I am having trouble following what you wrote up there.

How far away does one have to be to be out of danger of a 1000 lb bomb? How far away from this bomb do you think the kid was before they put him in frame? Do you know that he was safe before they took the shot? Woudl the child or even the average adult know what distance to keep from the bomb? How many unexploded bombs are there in Lebanon? How many young kids would go play on or near a bomb without realizing the danger?

What kind of point does the picture make? I think that it makes the point that there are children in danger of unexploded bombs all over Lebanon and though photographers shouldnt force kids to stand next to bombs, I believe they are tryign to pull at peoples heartstrings.

So the BBC shouldnt print pictures they receive of kids being near 1000 lb bombs because it encourages other photographers to take pictures of kids next to bombs? Sorry I am having trouble following what you wrote up there.



No. BBC shouldnt print pictures of kids that were forced to be near thousand pound bombs for photo ops. This encourages those who push kids into danger for photo ops. If the camera was not there then neither would the kid have been forced into near proximity of the bomb. Since the bomb and the camera was there the kid was pushed into the view. Since the reason that they wanted the kid in the picture was the hopes of worldwide media coverage of a kid near a bomb, and since they got the coverage, this success will encourage them to put more kids near bombs for photo opportunities. It in no way discourages them from pushing kids near bombs to be placed in mainstream media when it just so happens that when they put a kid near a bomb and a photographer for the Beeb snaps the pic and the BBC prints the pic in worldwide media. Placing children next to bombs is bad. I dont want it. You probably dont want it. Encouraging people to force children to pose near bombs is bad. Printing pictures of children posed near bombs encourages those who pose the children near bombs. This is bad.

Get it?

No. BBC shouldnt print pictures of kids that were forced to be near thousand pound bombs for photo ops. This encourages those who push kids into danger for photo ops. If the camera was not there then neither would the kid have been forced into near proximity of the bomb. Since the bomb and the camera was there the kid was pushed into the view. Since the reason that they wanted the kid in the picture was the hopes of worldwide media coverage of a kid near a bomb, and since they got the coverage, this success will encourage them to put more kids near bombs for photo opportunities. It in no way discourages them from pushing kids near bombs to be placed in mainstream media when it just so happens that when they put a kid near a bomb and a photographer for the Beeb snaps the pic and the BBC prints the pic in worldwide media. Placing children next to bombs is bad. I dont want it. You probably dont want it. Encouraging people to force children to pose near bombs is bad. Printing pictures of children posed near bombs encourages those who pose the children near bombs. This is bad.

Get it?

I'm still struggling to understand how this is a good thing for Hezbollah? The article informs you that the kid was forced near the bomb, this is not good publicity for hezbollah. A few more shots like that with the corresponding honesty about the situation around the taking of the photograph and hezbollah will find alot of the sympathy the west has for them drying up.

Get it?

Yep, right next to and article that tells you that was the situation and allows you to condemn Hezbollah for it.

Tell me again how this is good publicity for hezbollah?

I didnt tell you shit about good publicity.
But I will now since you dribbled out the sarcastic allusuion to something I didnt do. Cuz I like your door to door viagra salesman style.

Hezbollah does not give one half of a putrid rat fuck about whether publicity is good or bad. As long as it gets press. Think of the last 16 publicity stunts they did and you tell me where it is you see them caring if the press is bad. They care about press coverage or they wouldnt do publicity stunts with their attacks. They like the news about them to be big and regilar not good.

I'm still struggling to understand how this is a good thing for Hezbollah? The article informs you that the kid was forced near the bomb, this is not good publicity for hezbollah. A few more shots like that with the corresponding honesty about the situation around the taking of the photograph and hezbollah will find alot of the sympathy the west has for them drying up.

Get it?

Nope. Hezbollah doesnt want good press or they wouldnt be Hezbollah. Get it?

I didnt tell you shit about good publicity.
But I will now since you dribbled out the sarcastic allusuion to something I didnt do. Cuz I like your door to door viagra salesman style.

Hezbollah does not give one half of a putrid rat fuck about whether publicity is good or bad. As long as it gets press. Think of the last 16 publicity stunts they did and you tell me where it is you see them caring if the press is bad. They care about press coverage or they wouldnt do publicity stunts with their attacks. They like the news about them to be big and regilar not good.

Of course they care about the type of publicity they are getting otherwise they wouldn't have put the kid in the shot in the first place. They wanted the sympathy angle and didn't get it because the BBC were diligent in their duty to faithful reporting of the situation.

Of course they care about the type of publicity they are getting otherwise they wouldn't have put the kid in the shot in the first place. They wanted the sympathy angle and didn't get it because the BBC were diligent in their duty to faithful reporting of the situation.

Who says hezbollah pushed him in front of the camera? So far only you. I dont have a dog in this fight. I dont care who pushed the kid in front of the camera . If it was an Israeli or Hezbollah or George Bush or you or Dale Earnhart Jr I would still be against the BBC encouraging them no matter what the article says about any party involved or otherwise. Not just the BBC either. I am against the New York Times or Fox or CNN or The Guardian or the SuperSoaraway Sun doing it. You can and apparantly do like them encouraging the bastards to shove kids onto bombs by makng it news. I will not. I promise you will never change my mind simply by changing the subject to good media coverage vs bad press for hezbollah.

Who says hezbollah pushed him in front of the camera? So far only you. I dont have a dog in this fight. I dont care who pushed the kid in front of the camera . If it was an Israeli or Hezbollah or George Bush or you or Dale Earnhart Jr I would still be against the BBC encouraging them no matter what the article says about any party involved or otherwise. Not just the BBC either. I am against the New York Times or Fox or CNN or The Guardian or the SuperSoaraway Sun doing it. You can and apparantly do like them encouraging the bastards to shove kids onto bombs by makng it news. I will not. I promise you will never change my mind simply by changing the subject to good media coverage vs bad press for hezbollah.

Not bad - What do you think the role of journo's is?

If it is to provide a public record of incidents I fail to understand the beef here...afterall did the photo'gs coerce the child themselves?

A perfect example of kids and media and terror can be found in the Troubles in Ireland.

During the Orangemen marches you could find journo's hanging around ... and the kids would come out and basically act up in front of the cameras...with the tacit approval of the parents...

Obviously this is not the same case but the point is that if the journo's ignore 'it' then they are not doing their jobs...

Which is a moot point these days...lets face it...our journo's are as journalistic as our politicians are representatives of the people.

Not bad - What do you think the role of journo's is?

If it is to provide a public record of incidents I fail to understand the beef here...afterall did the photo'gs coerce the child themselves?

A perfect example of kids and media and terror can be found in the Troubles in Ireland.

During the Orangemen marches you could find journo's hanging around ... and the kids would come out and basically act up in front of the cameras...with the tacit approval of the parents...

Obviously this is not the same case but the point is that if the journo's ignore 'it' then they are not doing their jobs...

Which is a moot point these days...lets face it...our journo's are as journalistic as our politicians are representatives of the people.


It's the journo's job to report news not cause news.

No, they wouldn't lose its viewers to news agencies that have no integrity, and are glad to rehash propaganda.
I'm sorry, but if there is a planet where things actually work as you describe above, it's not a planet I am familiar with...:rolleyes:

An interesting point about all the hand-wringing is how suddenly Middle Eastern kids are 'real kids' again....I guess they only stop being 'real kids' when they are in US custody in Gitmo...?:confused:

The fact is the photo and accompanying text are factual. The child being reluctantly herded into the photo isnt extraneous to the story, it is part of the story. It speaks volumes and frankly it takes a very shallow veiw to miss as much; what interpretation you take is up to you, but to suggest it isnt part of the story, that it isnt relevant, that it should be "glossed over" and ignored is to suggest that the truth is a just a bit too much. If I'm not up to dealing with the news, I take a break from dealing with the news, I dont expect the world's journalists to take a break on my behalf.....If it's all too much for you dont read or look.

Evidently for all the rampant speculation the story doesnt state that Hezbollah were involved in the photo. I rather suspect the boy's mother may have been the one who herded the boy into the photo, although the commentary certainly does not make this clear either way.

Frankly the information about the boy's role is too scant (rather than over-played), we dont know that he is reluctant to approach the 'unexploded ordinance' or if he is 'camera-shy'. We dont know who herded him into the shot and whether he was coaxed or ordered into place, much less why he was reluctant and why the person herding him felt he ought to be in the shot.

They could have refused to take the picture. Gone away.And then they would have walked down the street to Israel and had an ice cream sundae because this is black and white world!

It's the journo's job to report news not cause news.

did the journo's place the child next to the bomb?

And I don't see what any of this has to do with the BBC article in question. The articles states that the photo is staged in the second paragraph. You can use this article to question the morals of the BBC for priting the photo but you can't use this article to question its' journalistic ethics, they are nothing but honest about the situation surrounding the taking of the photo.

A less honest news agency wouldnt have admitted their mistake.The bbc is not perfect but they at least attempt to rectify their mistakes and admit when they are wrong.
The child shouldnt have been pushed near the bomb,but news agencies with less integrity wouldnt have admitted this.
What they were probably trying to show(ps I am not trying to excuse tehm)was that this child has to live with this bomb in the front room,every day.It was probably not the best way of showing it, they could have taken a picture of the bomb and then had an interveiw with the child and family.
Hindsight is a great thing...

I'm still struggling to understand how this is a good thing for Hezbollah? The article informs you that the kid was forced near the bomb, this is not good publicity for hezbollah. A few more shots like that with the corresponding honesty about the situation around the taking of the photograph and hezbollah will find alot of the sympathy the west has for them drying up.

Get it?

if the bbc show a child with an israeli bomb that creates sympathy for the child and for hezbollah against Israel, it like' look what israel are doing they are killing children, support hezbollah aginst the israeli murderers' that what they want people to think rather than actually realising that both sides are in the wrong, both sides are kiiling people.

worst interpretation of the story ever.

Were this rant to be what the BBC think, you would see no article on hezbollah on the BBC. If you check their website, I think you'll find that they DO, indeed, show both sides of the story.

you misunderstand me, I am suggesting that hezbollah helped orchestrate this, and hezbollah want the sympathy.I was not attcking the bbc as you seem to think, I think the bbc are very fair.I will try to be clearer next time....I was criticising hezbollah(for trying to get sympathy)not the bbc..

worst interpretation of the story ever.

Were this rant to be what the BBC think, you would see no article on hezbollah on the BBC. If you check their website, I think you'll find that they DO, indeed, show both sides of the story.

I mean come on, have you ever read any of my posts, Im not generally an israel supporter,and I dont think the bbc is anti israeli!!

you misunderstand me, I am suggesting that hezbollah helped orchestrate this, and hezbollah want the sympathy.I was not attcking the bbc as you seem to think, I think the bbc are very fair.I will try to be clearer next time....I was criticising hezbollah(for trying to get sympathy)not the bbc..

I mean come on, have you ever read any of my posts, Im not generally an israel supporter,and I dont think the bbc is anti israeli!!

My bad. I seem to have misplaced my sarcasm detector. Think nothing more of it. But, no I haven't been following your post history so I didn't know your stance on Israel.

My bad. I seem to have misplaced my sarcasm detector. Think nothing more of it. But, no I haven't been following your post history so I didn't know your stance on Israel.

thats cool....no worries,as I said Ill try to be clearer nextime,or maybe dont use sarcasm, its very difficult to tell whether someone is being sarcastic online or not.....