Slashdot Mirror
Reuters Admits, Pulls Doctored Photos
fragmentate points to a post on PopPhoto which says "Reuters pulled a photograph of burning buildings in Beirut yesterday after a post on the Little Green Footballs blog outed it as digitally manipulated. The photo, filed on Saturday by freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, ran with the caption "Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs."
Fragmentate adds "Another image from the same photographer was found to have been doctored.
Whether you're a CNN fan, or a FoxNEWS fan, you have to wonder how much of what we see is fake, or exaggerated."
Believe it or not there are still a few honest sources for news. CBC is a good source, and have for many many years reported both sides of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Fox on the other hand has a serious bias, which is sad and a dis-service to genuine news reporters.
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
Reuters says it normally sends all photos to their Singapore office to check for manipulation but this one slipped through. Looks bad but not quite the same level of deception as the hack who put Kerry and Fonda in the same photo during the last election cycle.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
This is a bit ingenuous. Even before digital photo manipulation, a clear distinction was recognized between standard darkroom manipulations to adjust brightness, contrast, and color, and "trick photography" such as double exposures (which is analogous with what the photographer was doing with the Photoshop clone tool).
The bad photoshop work isn't really the story here. It's just what got him fired from Reuters. In one example and yet another, this photographer is acting more as a Hezbollah propaganda operative than a news photographer. He was responsible for one of the most used photos from Qana with the dead child being held up, and as recently as yesterday had a picture on Page 1 of the NYT of an injured Lebonese civilian. He's basically the Peter Parker of Lebanon. It's wouldn't be hard to get the best photos if you were working with the terrorists who control the region!
ALL press is biased, period.
Perhaps it is possible that there are both biased sources and unbiased sources.
Perhaps it is possible that a source could be unbiased, but be surrounded by accusations of bias because it is being attacked by biased people.
For example, I see people claiming that the New York Times has a "left wing bias" and others claiming that the New York Times has a "right wing bias". I see people claiming that the press in general has a pro-Israeli bias and others claiming that the press in general has an anti-Israeli bias. Surely not all of these people can be simultaneously correct. What if we're just not very good at measuring bias?
For example: Let's say that a news source, like Reuters, has no intrinsic bias, but sometimes make mistakes. Meanwhile let's say Reuters is read by readers who have a pro- or anti- Israel bias. The people who are biased toward Israel will ignore mistakes Reuters makes that work in Israel's favor, but view mistakes that make Israel look bad as "bias". The people who are biased against Israel will ignore mistakes Reuters makes that hurt Israel, but view mistakes Reuters makes that help Israel as "bias". Perhaps overall Reuters makes more-- maybe significantly more-- mistakes that help one of these specific two sides, and this is a sign of overall bias. But how do we tell? Well, there are two alternatives, as I see it. The good alternative is to simply demand responsible, objective reporting which avoids mistakes and corrects them as quickly as possible when they are discovered, so that there are fewer chances for bias to creep in. The bad alternative is to simply throw up one's hands and conclude objectivity should be given up on.
It often seems to me that people who play the "EVERYONE IS BIASED" game are simply trying to excuse their own indifference to objective truth by claiming "everyone does it". I see problems in the media at many levels, of many kinds. But I do not think failure by some sources to fail to reach 100% perfect objectivity excuses the many other "media" sources which do not even try for objectivity.
You want, for some odd reason since this Slashdot article isn't about them, the New York Times to admit they have a left-wing bias. I know some people who would like the New York Times to admit they have a right-wing bias. How do we decide which of you two gets what you want?
You are talking about the first. This is editorial work and damages the truth only to the extent that editing the stutters and stammers out of a spoken statement.
We are seeing examples of the second and third, which are like falsifying sources and, well, lying.
This is not my sandwich.
That's bull. Either Reuters editors are idiots and got pwned or Reuters is implicated in the fakery and anti-Israel propagandas. There are other manipulated photos or fake captions:
YNetNewsan F-16 dropping a defensive flare and a bomb, but the photographer thought the flare was a missile and cloned the bomb and the flare. This is just as bad a cloning job as the smoke one.
Powerline Blog: The same destroyed building was reported twice on Aug. 5 and Jul. 24.
Drinking from home: The same woman got her home flattened twice, on Jul. 22 and Aug. 5.
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: A caption said a man was running from a bombed building during an overnight raid, except that the photo was taken during the day.
These are what we notice. How many others that got passed through because the fake job was done better? How would Reuter have managed to pass through these if they had vetted te photos?
Hours after PM Siniora took back the comment when he reported 40 civilians were killed and said instead that only one got killed, Reuters still reported Israel killing 40 civilians. They are not a news outlet, they are a propaganda machine.
There are lots of levels of manipulation:
* Telling people where to stand and how to look - posing the photo - adding props.
* Framing the original photo to leave out things that spoil the story.
* Lying about when the photo was taken, where it was taken. Distorting the facts of what we are seeing.
* Brightness/Contrast/Gamma settings
* Colour adjustment
* Cropping - not really any different from framing the photo in the first place.
* Cleaning up speckles.
* Taking out distracting objects that don't affect the meaning of the photo.
* Taking out objects to change the meaning of the photo.
* Blurring company logos.
* Painting in whole new objects (like the smoke in the Reuters images).
There is a whole spectrum of 'manipulation' - some before the photo is taken, some in the camera, some outside the camera and some even just in how the photo is captioned.
It's a hard call as to where to place the limits.
Some of the Reuters photos that have recently exposed clearly exceed all reasonable limits of behavior - others don't. The most outrageous thing is how ineptly these were documented - it sends the message "You guys are complete idiots who'll believe even this low grade manipulation."
www.sjbaker.org
(I'd be much obliged if someone could tell me where that quote came from.)'
'In war, truth is the first casualty.' Aeschylus
'All warfare is based on deception.' Sun Tzu
'Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.' Samuel Johnson
'The first casualty when war comes is truth.' Hiram Johnson (US Senator)
... and others
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
(This is an elaboration of points in the parent post directed mainly at the grandparent post.)
Hezbollah was formed in 1982, as an answer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Hezbolla is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and Canada. But the Islamic countries consider it a resistance movement, as do a number of other countries worldwide. It is not just a military organization (though it has a military wing) but also a poltical party.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon, they didn't withdraw from all of it. They still occupy the Shebba Farms, and continue to hold civilians there hostage after decades of occupation. Further, they diverted some of its water to other Israeli sites.
So as far as Hezbolla is concerned, Israel is still occupying part of Lebanon.
Israel also captured a number of Hezbolla officials and continuee to hold them prisoner, rather than releasing them as part of their withdrawal from the bulk of the occupied part of Lebanon.
Hezbollah didn't start firing rockets a few weeks ago. They've been launching rockets into Israel for years. Until this most recent set of events, Israel would respond with an occasional air
Further, the Hezbolla attack that precipitated this incident was not a "terrorist" rocket launch, nor was it a "terrorist kidnapping". It was a military raid on an Israeli military unit, attempting (successfully) to capture Israeli military personnel to use for a prisoner exchange. (As sometimes happens in a battle, other Israeli solders were killed attempting to defend their unit.)
Hezbolla offered the exchnage. Israel, continuing to characterize Hezbolla's actions as terrorism, responded by a massive attack on Lebanon.
The attack began by cuting off the transportation routes across its borders, then continued by destroying much of its infrastructure (including an attack on a power station's fuel dump that cut off most of the power for the country - including that needed to pump water for drinking and fire fighting.) Additionally they attacked regions they considered to be Hezbolla hideouts, demolishing apartment buildings and killing their occupants. They also attacked the vehicles of people evacuating their homes (as demanded by Israel's military).
Hezbolla responded to these attacks - as the military (official or otherwise) of any country under attack might - by launching rockets against Israel. Unfortunately, the missiles they have available have limited guidance capability (unlike those of Israel.)
Israel claims the civilian casualties (in apartment buildings, vehicles, a hospital, and at least one well-known UN site) are the result of Hezbolla using the general population as "human shields". Hezbolla (and a number of governments in the region and elsewhere) claim they are a deliberate attempt by Israel to punish the civilian population of Lebanon for the actions of the Hezbolla fighters (in violation of the generally accepted "rules of war", which consider such actions, if deliberate policy, to be a war crime - and "terrorism").
At this point the claimed casualty counts on both sides show about a 10:1 ratio of Lebanese to Israeli dead.
Some opposed to Israel claim their actual agenda is to expand their borders by siezing and settling more of the land between their current borders and their pre-diaspora historic borders - as advocated by a faction in Israel. Those historic borders, at their greatest reach, include much of southern Lebanon. (The faction's stated claim for the border is the Litani River - which, you'll notice, is the river beyond which the Israeli army intends to push Hezbolla to create their "security zone".)
So with Israel and a few of its allies claiming that Hezbolla started it all with an act of terrorism and kidnapping, and Hezbolla and a number of its allies claiming that Israel started it decades ago, never stopped, and they're a resistance movement trying to oust an occupying force in accordance with international law, don't expect it to end soon.
And don't expect the rest of the world to view Hezbolla's attempt to grab some soldiers to trade for their own imprisoned politicians and officers as the moral equivalent of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm a graphic artist that once worked for a newspaper as a production artist for editorial content. There were strict rules for what I was and wasn't allowed to do to photographs.
I was permitted to use levels, curves and other brightness and contrast controls. I was also permitted to selectively dodge and burn if it helped make the photo more clear. I could use the cloning tool only to correct dust and scratches introduced by the scanning process. If there was a light switch on the wall next to the governor's head, I couldn't "remove" it. If someone in a group photo had their eyes closed, I couldn't drop in their head from another photo. Our editor was a brick wall of journalistic ethics, and sounded just like SpiderMan's boss.
Of course, the camera can be used to cast a person in an unflattering way, and a small change to the image's brightness can be used to make a person look sinister if it better fits the story... Time Magazine was accused of doing just that to a cover photo of O.J. if I recall correctly.
Now I work in advertising where every photo undergoes countless hours of retouching and compositing. Reality is bent and twisted into the lie that will sell product.
In case anyone is still interested, Reuters has pulled all 920 photos by this photographer. Only two have been proven faked but they are not taking any chances. The question remains though, how did they get through Reuters' editorial process? Here are a few links to the story:
- 07T162044Z_01_L06301298_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-REU TERS-DC.html
. photog.reut/index.html
l
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060807/2006-08
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/reuters
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207352,00.htm
But why is the rum gone?
The general public in Lebanon is to blame.
Lots of them actually support taking shots at Israel. The people who don't support that have still allowed it to occur.
I know, it's easy for me to say that the people in Lebanon should have put Hezbolla in jail or executed the whole lot of them. There isn't a one politician over there who dares to take a strong stand against the bastards.
But yet... a nation is responsible for keeping such things in check. Each and every person has a duty to keep the gangs under control. When this is not done, somebody else will come in and do the job.
If you let the criminals operate out of your house, don't complain when you get raided.
# Sort of like the way the fake 60 Minutes article on Bush's little vacation from the Air National Guard was placed by a GOP operative trying to smear CBS and Dan Rather.
Well, he's certainly not alone in this theory, and it is consistent with what Rove is known to have done to Alan Dixon, John McCain, and many others.
Well, I can't say with 100% certainty that this didn't happen, but the problem I have with this is that it relies totally on CBS to "do the right thing". Suppose CBS decided they didn't like President Bush and facts be damned, he had to go. Next they steadfastly insist that the documents are authentic and trump out some paid off "experts" to validate them, leaving the Republicans to argue that the docs are made up. It then gets into a "he said/she said" thing where Bush and his staffers can't totally disprove that the docs aren't made up without admitting that they placed them to begin with, so they have to waste precious time and resources defending against a lie they started secretly. I'm just not sure I can go down this path with you on this one.
# and they're morally deformed enough to try to smear the patriotism of a triple amputee war hero.
His name was Max Clealand, and they did just what he said.
I actually live in the state of Georgia, so I can comment on this one. The Washington Post is known for it's left leaning views, so I'm not sure I would bring this out as an "unbiased" source. Cleland was his own worst enemy. Actually this vote, stupid as it was, was not what did him in. Cleland was beaten because of his slavish devotion to the Democratic Party. The Dems opposed a bill creating the Department of Homeland Security because it contained provisions that weakened job protections (think "unions") in the new department. Since the Dems are the party that backs labor unions, opposing such language in the bill was consistent with their viewpoint. Fellow Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller has stated that he told Cleland repeatedly that if he voted against the bill, it would cost him the election in the fall. Cleland, always a true soldier of the Democratic Party and never one to differ from the party line, told Miller that he didn't know what he was talking about. So Cleland voted against the bill, just as the Democratic Party told him to do. Much ado was made about this in the fall campaign and it basically became impossible for Cleland to justify why he was "against America's security", so he lost. Cleland was not a particularly good senator and he paid the price for putting the party first above all. Like it or not, Miller was right and this was simply not a bill you could justify voting against and Cleland paid the price. The article link in the Washington Post refers to another incident that while it did not help Cleland, was not directly responsible for his loss.
Your definition of terrorism is over simplistic.
Initiating conflicts, intentionally targeting civilians, intentionally putting civilians in harms way = terrorism.
Guatemalan assasinations
CIA wrote the book on targeting civilan targets and using "martyrs". The manual recommended "selective use of violence for propagandistic effects" and to "neutralize" (i.e., kill) government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were taught to lead:
"demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the Government to create even bigger conflicts."
The manual also recommended:
"Carefully selected, planned targets -- judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. -- may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA [unconventional warfare operations area]."
Wrote the book on torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_manuals)
And don't forget that we put Sadam in power. and trained that pesky Afganistan freedom fighter named bin Laden
Give me a break. Your points have nothing to do with "fact checking" -- that would require actually checking if the assertion is a fact. Instead, you managed to come up with a list of meaningless questions to find out of this idiotic assertion could be possibly true. If you will note, you could use those same questions to prove that the landing on the moon could have been faked, or that Elvis could still be alive.
Is there an superior/generally accepted alternative explanation No, not really. The other proposed explanations (e.g. Terry McCallef(sp) did it) are even weaker.
Are you kidding? The Democrats had been rabidly and blindly trying to attack Bush on this issue since he ran for Governor of Texas. National security was perceived as the Republicans biggest strength in the 2004 election, and Democrats were painted as weak. Do you really think that it is all that far-fetched to assume that a Democrat forged these documents in an attempt to undermine the Republicans perceived greatest political strength while at the same time bring to light an "issue" that they had been trying to capitalize on for years?
Does the proposed explanation require anyone to act out of character, or against their own interests?No, not at all. In fact, the two prime reasons for suspecting Rove are 1) that it's very similar to things he's been known to do in the past (e.g. spreading negative information against his own candidate, such as he did for Harold See, forging documents as he did against Alan Dixon), and 2) it accomplished exactly what he would have wanted
There isn't any proof that Rove spread negative information about Harold See. In fact, the only serious accusation against Rove in that campaign (that he denies) was negative information that was allegedly spread about their opponent, not Harold See. And you really should qualify your reference to Alan Dixon to include that it was a College prank and he was only 19 years old, and Rove has apologized for it. And passing out some "Free Beer" posters at a rock concert isn't exactly on the same level of forging a document about your candidate and hoping that the media picks up on it so your opponent might look bad.
Could the same arguments be turned around? Not really. Nothing in the memos was contested, and all of it had been previously reported (e.g. by the BBC). Bush never even attempted to deny any of it. The people who would know even stated that the information in the memos was essentially correct. So it wouldn't have helped Kerry's team much at all to have the documents, even if they had been legitimate.
Of course Bush denied it. He went to great lengths to prove that his National Guard service was fulfilled, and that he was honorably discharged from the service. And the only person who would have been qualified to say if the information was "essentially" correct was the author, who was conveniently not around to make any comment.
The Democrats fear and loathing of Karl Rove is laughable. I guess it makes sense, however. They have spent years trying to convince everybody that the first US President with a Harvard MBA is a complete moron, so they have to find some explanation as to why they keep losing to him. The evil-genius-wizard-behind-the-curtains title for Karl Rove fits that bill.
Guess what? Karl Rove is not a political evil genius. He isn't even that good at what he does. He lets too many attacks and assumptions about the President go unchallenged. Your posts are a great example of this. Take this paragraph, for example:
Lets take a look at the inventions here that you are trying to pass off as fact. Everything about the memos was contested. There isn't a shred of evidence to prove the assertion that George Bush disobeyed a direct order or was AWOL from his obligations in the National Guard. These memos where the only thing that supposedly proved this, and they turned out to be fake.
Of course he did! He has denied the accusations that he didn't fulfill his obligations with the National Guard, and this is backed up by the fact that he had completed more than the required flying hours and was honorably discharged from service.
In this case, the only people that would know were dead.
See, if Karl Rove was a good political strategist, let alone the evil super-genius that you believe he is, people like you wouldn't still be spreading baseless rumors about his National Guard service around as fact.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush