L.A. Times Ignores Iranian Fauxtography?
Charles Johnson says that they have. I have absolutely no basis for knowing whether Charles is right, so I’ll just pass along the link in the spirit of open-source distribution of information.
P.S. Please keep in mind that if Charles turns out to be wrong, the preceding will be treated by the lefties as an unqualified endorsement of Charles’s post. In the meantime, they will treat is as an example of the irresponsibility of the right blogosphere in passing along unconfirmed stories. Heads we lose, tails they win.
Unless, of course, Charles is right . . . in which case, gentlemen, NONE OF THIS EVER HAPPENED.
UPDATE: Ace doesn’t see the photoshopping. His first commenter says it’s a badly labeled inset.
I’m on a Treo and couldn’t possibly tell, even if I had the required expertise — which I don’t.
I think I made this pretty clear in the main post, but please: keep in mind that Charles’s post could be a giant dud, as alleged media scandals sometimes are.
UPDATE x2: Also, to make it clear, Charles appears to be saying, not that the paper published fauxtography, but that the paper is giving credence to Iranian claims despite the publication elsewhere of fauxtography supporting the claim. Thanks to Wesson for the clarification. I’m deleting the words “Falls for” from the headline and substituting “Ignores.”
Patterico,
You’re not suggesting that the Iranian government could be lying, are you? Only Chimpster McHalliburton would do that.
And you’re not suggesting a news organization might be wrong, are you? Hasn’t reading the LA Times and AP and Reuters and watching CBS News corrected that mindset yet? (Of course, it’s one thing to suggest someone is wrong, and something else to believe that they might be lying. If Bush is wrong, it’s a lie. If the news is wrong, it’s an honest mistake.)
And you’re not suggesting that LGF might be right, are you? The Bush TXANG memoes, and the commentary regarding the LA Times should make clear that relying on bloggers to vet the news is simply a formula for catastrophe! (For whom, I leave to the reader to determine.)
Lurking Observer (5a757b) — 2/19/2007 @ 3:35 pmPatterico has exactly the right attitude — treat this as a discussion item, but not proven. Skepticism should work both ways.
Bradley J. Fikes (7492b2) — 2/19/2007 @ 3:56 pmThe one thing I can see clearly is the removal of the AK but they left the strap and the butt stock (in the one with the ammo box detail).
The rest is unclear to me but I don’t have any photo shop experience.
LifeTrek (78ca8e) — 2/19/2007 @ 4:04 pmDKK
Patterico,
My quick perusal of LGF – the photoshop backstory is laid out in the 2/18/07 post where Charles busts fauxtography by Iran’s Fars news agency. He then comments that the “story” was picked up by the LA Times in his 2/19/07 post.
Please note that the 2/18/07 comment is missing, at least on my browser, a SWF animation that illustrated how the photo was shopped (much like the TANG memo).
bendover (669e26) — 2/19/2007 @ 4:11 pmPat,
The ammunition in the photo is Winchester USA brand ammunition loaded here in the United States as inexpensive factory practice ammunition for civilian use. You can find it in virtually every gun shop and retail establishment selling ammunition. It is not military grade ammunition.
This packaging is old, from probably around 12-20 years ago. That says nothing about the alleged Photoshopping, but it does beg us to ask the question:
If the United States was going to supply the Iranian insurgency, don’t you think we’d give them current-issue, military-grade ammunition from another nation (hence harder to trace), instead of old civilian plinking ammunition with “USA” stamped on the front of the box?
I think they’re trying just a bit too hard, and too pathetically.
Confederate Yankee (4ee6a7) — 2/19/2007 @ 4:29 pmPat:
Tell the truth, you just wanted to use this post to brag about having a Treo, right?
Army Lawyer (6853dd) — 2/19/2007 @ 4:34 pmThe LAT has taken this “hiring the handicap” thing a little too far – their photo editor is blind.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 2/19/2007 @ 5:16 pmDefinately altered photos. Extremely obvious.
Skul (98d40d) — 2/19/2007 @ 5:20 pmYou can see the repeating elements very easily. No prior photoshopping experience required. Just your eyeballs.
Claire (10ebe1) — 2/19/2007 @ 5:46 pmLGF’s spin is kind of obnoxious here. LA Times is publishing a legit photo, but they are “ignoring” the fact that some Iran website is publishing a photoshopped photo. So, LA Times is ignoring faked photos!
[I think you’re right. Thanks for the clarification. — P]
Wesson (c20d28) — 2/19/2007 @ 5:50 pmI thought part of Charles’ point was that the picture could be photoshopped because the Iran TV and Iran’s Fars News versions appeared virtually identical, except the TV version had an AK-47 that was missing from the Fars News version. However, it wasn’t just that the the AK-47 was missing: Piieces of it (like the strap and handle) were still visible, suggesting the picture had been altered rather than someone changed out the objects themselves.
I’m not saying I know this is a good story or that the picture was photoshopped – I don’t. I’m saying I think there was more to Charles’ point than the USA Winchester label that Ace addressed.
DRJ (605076) — 2/19/2007 @ 5:53 pmMy SWF animation that demonstrates what a hack cut-n-paste job the original FARS photo is can be found here:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n212/DarUlHarb/IranianPhotoshop.swf
Dar ul Harb (778c40) — 2/19/2007 @ 6:01 pm“LGF’s spin is kind of obnoxious here. LA Times is publishing a legit photo, but they are “ignoring” the fact that some Iran website is publishing a photoshopped photo. So, LA Times is ignoring faked photos!”
LGF’s spin is that LA Times made no effort to verify the story they had, they chose to publish the anti-US spin, that the US is funding ‘terrorists’ in Iran based upon a photo which has ONE twenty year old box of cheap US practice (7.62×39) ammo, and if the LA Times bothered to verify what was before their eyes, the numerious ‘pineapple’ and rifle launched grenades are of Russina/Soviet origen.
Nevermind that the earliest photo, which LA Times had access to, had the AK (which does not fire 7.62) and its magazines photoshopped out, they chose not to publish that.
LA Times chose to willfully publish anti-US / pro-Iranian propoganda.
PETN Sandwich (346e01) — 2/19/2007 @ 6:12 pmTreo?! TREO?!
Does anyone still use that junk? Get yourself a BlackBerry 8800 Patterico, lose that wussiemachine.
wvobiwan (a727ec) — 2/19/2007 @ 6:59 pmCheck out the background pattern of hexagons in the first picture, then look at the second picture where the ammo clips are missing – so are the hexagons!
OC Chuck (c9d685) — 2/19/2007 @ 7:45 pmi don’t give a damn if iran doctored the photo or not.
assistant devil's advocate (492127) — 2/19/2007 @ 9:27 pmi know america has supplied arms to just about every country in the region at one time or another. our cia participated in a coup against iran’s democratically elected leader mohammed mossadegh in the 1950s in order to install the shah. we recently invaded iraq under a pretextual pastiche of lies, and we show no signs of leaving after saddam’s airdance. most recently, administration sources speaking under condition of anonymity assured us that iran was the source of a newer, more effective tank-killer.
i’m tired of this shit. i don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel. we can’t stop the sunni-shia mutual hatred, we can’t bring stable, robust american-style institutions to these savages, we can’t realize any collective american benefit from the tragic, wasteful sacrifices of our people over there, so let’s get the hell out now!
It wasn’t the CIA, you twit. Operation Ajax was orchestrated by the British to depose the KGB installed Mossadegh.
The Brits asked for our help, and as a loyal ally, we gave it to them.
Vinnie (bb258a) — 2/19/2007 @ 9:42 pmWait a minute, please. None of you apparently read the LA times passage given by Charles. It is, like Gaul, in three parts:
1)A recitation of the claim made by Iranian officials.
2)An editorial-type comment that says very clearly that skepticism for the Iranian claim is in order, because the Iranians haven’t let anyone actually see the evidence, and no independent souce is available for confirmation of the claim. The photograph is totally irrelevant, and the LAT is expressing appropriate skepticism.
BUT–
3)Then comes the kicker, where you should all be up in arms, but aren’t: a semi-gratitious reference to the American claims that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents, made in such a way that leaves both the American and Iranian claims as equivalent, and suggests that the reader should be skeptical of both the American claims of last week and the Iranian claims of this week.
kishnevi (da26af) — 2/19/2007 @ 9:43 pmAhhh, diverse, tolerant, multicultural liberals.
Aren’t they cute?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 2/20/2007 @ 3:13 amGimme a break, Pablo.
ADA’s never made the slightest effort to affiliate himself with liberals… or anyone else, for that matter.
Just because he disagree’s with you, a conservative (apparently, considering your attachment to ideology), doesn’t make him a “liberal”.
Plus, it’s not like *you* disagree with that statement…
Leviticus (43095b) — 2/20/2007 @ 8:20 amHey where a lot of radical irainais went they dare not say anything bad about THE GREAT SATAN becuase their in his presents
krazy kagu (6a69d6) — 2/20/2007 @ 8:55 pm