Amazing Questionable Photo Roundup
Allah has all the good links. See also here. Ah, hell. Just skip my blog and go read his.
Here are some of the best:
Zombie doing a taxonomy of the types of deception practiced by Reuters.
Malkin with a huge roundup.
Slublog has a collection of remarkably dust-free toys sitting atop rubble. I suppose it could happen.
Just like it could be all these people happened to pose like this.
But when you start to add it up, it looks just a touch like propaganda. Just . . . a touch.
Patts
You wrote:
waldo (6c68b1) — 8/9/2006 @ 12:43 am“Keep your comments substantive.”
Thanks Patterico; you’re right but I know you’ll understand how hard it is to stay civil in a converstaion where the stakes are so high and the bottom line so deadly.
Also you won’t believe it but once I had quite a civil exchange of mail with Mike (Misha) from the AIR.
So I won’t comment on the hair-splitting going on here (‘those toys sitting in a pile of rubble that used to be a neighbourhood haven’t got dust on them!’ What’s that prove? They’re propagandising being bombed to dust?) but I will present a few ideas in the near future.
More Staging Of The News…
And people wonder why conservatives have so little faith/trust in the media.
This time, it’s not Reuters….it’s (surprise!) the New York Times and US News & World Report.
Michelle is on top of it, as it Gateway Pundit and AllahPundit.
A pag…
Iowa Voice (075f33) — 8/9/2006 @ 12:44 amI think its fair to assume at this point that photoshopping is rampant in the MSM.
I saw a few posts on blogs when the first one came up last weekend saying basically ‘the original photo is fine. Why did he do this? It doesn’t make sense. Its true that adding to the smoke and over-contrasting the image didn’t make that much difference. It was still some place in the war zone that was on fire.
The only way it makes sense is that they do it all the time – its routine. He just did it because he’s used to doing it. In fact they do it so much they don’t even think much of it, they’ve gotten to the point where they’re sloppy in the way they manipulate them.
I didn’t think this was that big a deal at first, but with everything I’ve seen the last couple days I now think just about every single image the media is publishing is either staged or manipulated in some way. What they want you to think is they have a photographer huddled in the rubble bravely taking snaps of live combat action. They’re lying.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/9/2006 @ 3:55 amRemember the Time cover of the pyramids where some nifty photo editor moved the pyramids closer together? It created a huge furor among journalists because it wasn’t “truthful.” It seems we’ve moved beyond such relatively innocuous manipulation into fullscale propagandizing. I’m sure there are probably people who would defend this stuff as just “clarification” of the situation or even that the pictures (like with the toys) are “art” or “representative.” Unfortunately, lost in that rubble and among the dustfree toys is the credibility of the MSM.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/9/2006 @ 4:23 amSo we should all be good little republican sycophants and only watch Fox News ‘cause they never make mistakes do they? And they’re never biased either.
Although reporting is a human endeavor, the reports better be perfect all the time or I’m taking all my toys and going home. So Na!
No, sorry Virginia but there are dishonest preachers, doctors, lawyers and even sometimes dishonest reporters. Yes, humans are fallible. How shocking.
How much does the average reporter get paid anyway – it’s only about 25K a year isn’t it? I considered being one when I was in college until I found out what a joke the pay was.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/9/2006 @ 4:45 amOn posing pix and staging photos, I recommend this url named, appropriately enough:
“Qana – the director’s cut”.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/qana-directors-cut.html
jim (6482d8) — 8/9/2006 @ 4:57 amPsyberian,
What an utterly foolish post.
To compare the overwhelming evidence of pro-Hezzi propaganda to “fallible humans” shows a complete disconnect to reality.
Also, please link us to the doctored photos Fox News presents as facts, or kindly cram it in your piehole.
Son Of The Godfather (7eca1c) — 8/9/2006 @ 5:18 amThe kids were really dead, though, Jim. Appeals to pity, even cynical, manipulative appeals to pity, are one thing and outright fraud is another.
nk (d7a872) — 8/9/2006 @ 5:21 amSo we should all be good little republican sycophants and only watch Fox News ‘cause they never make mistakes…
You really need to learn to put aside your hate so you can focus on other things when they come up Psy. Do you spew about Fox News when they mess up your burger order at the drive through?
Based on your post Iguess we can put you in the “its normal and nothing remarkable that news services are deliberately staging and photoshopping pictures (for whatever reason they’re doing it). Besides, they don’t make enough money, so its totally understandable. And Fox News is dishonest so its not even worthy of comment. Besides, nobody’s perfect, and this is just an imperfection. Hey, give me my news in a comic book as long it agrees with what I want to think. Doesn’t matter to me if you can’t take anything you see in the news at face value.” camp.
/shrug
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/9/2006 @ 5:34 amSo, we should expect more accurate news from better paid reporters, is that your argument? Because that’s not how they teach it in j-school.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/9/2006 @ 7:47 amnk –
“They’re dead, Jim.”
Never asserted anything different, nor did the cited site. Dead children are tragedies, no doubt it. Nonetheless, the pix were posed and staged.
Washington Post’s Tom Ricks asserted that he was “told” that:
“Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html
I consider Ricks’ assertion (even hidden within a statement alleged to anonymous others) to be absurd, yet the url I cited in my previous post proves that Hezbollah has been using dead children precisely as Ricks claimed Israel was doing!
jim (a9ab88) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:07 am[…] Institutional Failure at Reuters. AP Beirut Photog Faces Questions. A blogger shines when news media gets it wrong Zombietime: has a seemingly endless collection of instances Michelle Malkin: “Fauxtography” alert: NYTimes and USNews;plus Time and Reuters’ Issam Kobeisi Jawa Report: Is Adnan Hajj Two People? Sisu: Sometimes “False But Accurate” is just bad news Mary Katharine Ham: Freelance Fieldtrip: The Story of Zaatari and Hashisho Patterico: Amazing questionable photo roundup Wizbang: How Hezbollah intimidates journalists Hot Air: The Four Pillars of Reuters Photo Deception Confederate Yankee: Ghosts in the Media Machine and Body Shop Bombed Betsy Newmark: War Reporters Tools of Hezbollah and Why it Matters Blue Crab Boulevard: Fauxtojournalism All Things Beautiful: The NY Times Dead Man Walking […]
The Anchoress » Reuters jumps the shark? (1b383c) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:44 amMSM’s phony photos can’t fool us any longer, except of course for those among us who wish to deceive themselves.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/9/2006 @ 11:19 amI was only saying that the faked photos are more unethical than the “Green Helmet” photos, Jim. That was just a case of the press allowing itself to be manipulated. The faked photos are the press being a propaganda organ of the Hetzbollah.
nk (06f5d0) — 8/9/2006 @ 12:56 pm[…] Patterico points out that the Los Angeles Times has no story on the Reuters photoshop scandal. (Think they’ll cover the NYT?) He also has the “Amazing Questionable Photo Roundup” in case you haven’t found enough links yet. […]
The Random Yak » Dead Photojournalism Walking (dec680) — 8/9/2006 @ 1:36 pmnk –
I am unready to agree that one is more unethical than the other. They are all fraudulent and deliberate attempts to deceive and lie. Only the methods are different. I suggest you look here:
http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
jim (a9ab88) — 8/9/2006 @ 1:36 pmLook, Jim. The kids really died. I believe that they died because Hetzbollah put them in the line of fire. That prejudices me against Hetzbollah not against Isreal. So for me, that propaganda did not work. And when it is proven that Hetzbollah put the kids in the line of fire, the photos will work against Hetzbollah for many more people than me. But the bad thing is that kids die in these fucking wars not that the press shows that they die. The only other thing is whom to blame. Like I said, I blame Hetzbollah.
nk (06f5d0) — 8/9/2006 @ 1:51 pmDear Patterico,
Subscribe to the LA Times print edition or cease trying to be a critic; your tortured bracketing of your articles about the Times is foolish and embarrassing.
[Nonsense. A search on the paper’s web site is the best way to substantiate my claim that there have been no Hajj stories. Were I still a print subscriber, I’d leaf though the dead-tree version, but I’d still rely primarily on the site search. — P]
Iam Doubt (2f6590) — 8/9/2006 @ 2:46 pmnk –
I bear no you ill will or anything like that. Let me explain the bases for my statements, if you will.
The kid was dead and maybe she had been killed by IAF munitions, but the Hez staged her trip to the gurney and then the vehicle with at least three different bearers presumably to make it seem that there were more dead kids than there were.
The photo-shopped smoke was there and maybe had come from IAF munitions, but the photographer replicated it at least three time in the photo presumably to make it look that there had been more smoke than actually had been there.
The equivalence is almost exact, especially since that smoke may have come from IAF munitions that killed that kid, or others.
Of course, the kid may have been a domestic abuse victim brought in before the photo session, just as the smoke may have come from a Hez staged fire resulting from a rocket blow-up at launch towards Tel Aviv. We readers can not know either, but have traditionally taken the media at their word, or picture. Both the above frauds show that such trust is now misplaced, if ever it had been justified in the first place.
jim (99323f) — 8/9/2006 @ 5:31 pmAnybody ever seen an Israeli man dangling a dead Israeli child by her ankle for the cameras? These people are soulless, psychotic monsters, and deserve eveything they’re getting from the IDF and IAF.
CraigC (9cd021) — 8/9/2006 @ 6:37 pmAll right, Jim, just to show my heart’s in the right place, one good link deserves another. If those guys in the link are not professional models, I’m a monkey’s uncle. (BTW: It’s also a pointer to our host of a post at Big Lizards.)
nk (47858f) — 8/9/2006 @ 7:46 pmThank you for the invitation to display a Fox falsehood Son of the Godfather (who are you anyway – a mafia bad-boy wannabe like Abramoff or something? Grow up.)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Fox News apologized Friday for posting phony quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on its Web site.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-02-fox-kerry_x.htm
That was easy. And I feel better now. So much for your perfect Fox News reporting.
Look, I guess you all have a right to gripe about the doctored photos. Of course it’s not right. But with a new U.S. poll showing that 50% of the population believes the lie that Iraq had WMDs (just before we invaded), what kind of liberal media convinced half of America of that lie? I mean, where are they getting this crap? It’s crazy. I suspect Fox News.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:28 pmThat wasn’t reporting, Psy. It was a joke that accidentally made it onto the site. That’s different.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:30 pmBut was it not posted on the site Patterico? I can find other Fox Fake news if you insist (and you know I can).
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:35 pmSomething else would be more convincing.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:41 pmOK, you’re right Patterico. I can do better than that. Well, here is a recent one: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608090006
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:53 pmI don’t have time to research this deeply, but there are a lot of links to substantiate this Fox folly too: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003532.html
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/9/2006 @ 9:08 pmPsyberian-
1) It was not a lie. Everyone agrees, and it is well documented, that Iraq was in possession of chemical weaponry at the time of the invasion. Regardless, arguing that WMD were the sole justification for the invasion is an enormous piece of retconning the situation at the time.
2) Regarding Media Matters’ supposed gotcha- is there any showing that, at the time the report was being filed, Lamont was leading in those areas? Election night reporting is often subject to the shifting currents in precinct reporting. Also, looking at the bolded portion of the transcript doesn’t seem to me anywhere near the misrepresentation the breathless headline ascribes to it.
3) That Fox readily admitted and corrected its error is a positive to its journalistic credibility. There wasn’t a months long “fake but accurate” argument about the camera shots, or just shutting up and hoping that it quietly goes away.
Basically, I don’t see your point, except FOX NEWS = BAD.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 8/9/2006 @ 9:42 pmPsyberian, the Carl Cameron thing was just a frat-boy prank they were playing on the guy who puts up the graphics at Fox News’ website.
It was the dude’s birthday, or something, so Cameron was yanking the guy’s chain.
What’s interesting is the way you exclude yourself from being upset by the faked Reuters photos.
I don’t know if that emanates out of your desire to see Israel destroyed, or if it emanates out of your uncompromising obedience to mainstream media.
Nonetheless, a purveyor of truth—no matter what political party one belongs to—ought to be disturbed by faked photos no matter who the victim is.
Still, you’re hunting & pecking at left wing news sites such as Media Matters for mistakes at Fox News, yet you ignore the Reuters photos.
If you hunt & peck hard enough, you might find something about Operation Desert Fox in December of 1998, but that might undermine your position.
By the way, every newspaper in America including the NY Times prints “corrections” on a weekly, if not daily basis.
It sounds like you’re one of those sports fans who can only “see” the fouls committed against his team.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/9/2006 @ 11:02 pmGod Almighty what a dumb series of posts Psyberian.
Even if your childish bitching about Fox were relevant to the blog post – which it is not – the examples you give are not examples in kind. One idiot joke by Cameron then 2 examples of lefty blogs complaining of Fox coverage mistakes or bias.
None are deliberate alterations or staging of news. Are you even aware of what the complaint is about the Reuters photos?
Clue: this post isn’t about bias. It is about fraud.
Sheeesh.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/10/2006 @ 12:55 amHere’s a good example: the fake photo of Kerry in an audience with Jane Fonda was put on Fox news. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004698.php
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/10/2006 @ 5:16 amDid they just find it floating around on the internet and publish it since it fit their agenda? Naw, ‘course not.
Clam, how much chemical weaponry? Not enough to matter to us much – was it a threat to the U.S.? Not really. I believe that when people think “WMDs” these days, they’re not thinking of a few vials of a chemical agent. I don’t believe that Iraq had enough quantities to justify the war. Bush even made a joke of looking for the WMDs and not being able to find them, remember? “Nope, no WMDs in there.”
To claim that the WMDs were there even when Bush himself has admitted not finding them is indefensible. So the lying needs to stop. Now. We’re in a war and half our citizens don’t even know that basic fact. It’s maddening.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/10/2006 @ 5:24 amEnough to be in material breach of UN Sec Res 1441 and the numerous prior resolutions incorporated by reference therein. Case. Closed.
BTW, how much WMD does it take to be a threat? ANY is a threat. They’re not Valentine’s Day cards.
Show transcript linked from your link:
A great example, that. Everyone who’s blogged this story must be guilty of this treachery because, you know, they put up a faked picture. Either that, or you might want to actually read the things you link to.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/10/2006 @ 6:09 amSo, definitions are to be based on what psyberian thinks, apparently.
Never mind that the US military and US government has long defined “weapons of mass destruction” as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
(See, for example, reports from the now-defunct Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.)
No, psyberian has concluded that chemical weapons aren’t deserving of the “WMD” title, and who is anyone to question psyberian’s logic?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 8/10/2006 @ 6:58 amI think we can assume that they’re only WMD if they’re American made.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/10/2006 @ 8:57 amBTW, how much WMD does it take to be a threat? ANY is a threat. – Pablo
Then almost every country has WMDs Pablo. That’s plain stupid to say.
As For Fox, I suppose it is TNR vs. that blogger. Believe what you will. I brought it up since I remember when it happened.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/10/2006 @ 6:42 pmBut Psy, your evidence was debunked. Isn’t it time to admit it and move on?
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/10/2006 @ 9:03 pm[…] On August 9, I published a post rounding up many of the various pieces of evidence, including Zombie’s summary and Slublog’s dust-free toys atop destroyed buildings. The same day, Mr. Substance published a post that called the Reuters scandal “hysterically overblown” — with a hyperlink to his own Salon piece. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » OK, Just One More Hint: His Name Rhymes with “Beanwald” (421107) — 8/15/2006 @ 8:43 pm