Faked Photo of Beirut...

[Michele 1]

Apparently, there has been some photoshopping of a photo showing the bombing in Beirut. Reuters published it, and then discovered the photo was 'shopped, and the photographer was fired. Link to the story

I think that firing him is an appropriate response...however, this does make one wonder. If they got one guy, how many others haven't been found? If they published one shot, how many other photoshopped photos have been published?

And if this particular guy - Adnan Hajj (who is Lebanese, and has access to some high ranking Hezbollah folks, apparently) was doing it, why?

Do I think Reuters has an agenda? Not really. Do I think some of the folks working for them do? Yes...and that makes all photos subject to questioning.

Just thought, in light of the recent comments about photos, this would be interesting to some.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Gravitymaster 0]

Plus this which I already posted in th Pallywood thread.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html


Here's an article with the photo.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Shall we start refering to them as AL-JaReuters?

[Michele 1]

Wow. I know about LGF, and have, on occasion, read the blog. Seems like this isn't as "contained" as I had first believed.

Interesting.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Gravitymaster 0]

I love this part. Do you think Bagdad Bob is working for Reuters?

Quote

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

[Michele 1]

Bagdad Bob has been located!!!! He is shooting for Reuters!!! LOL, GM. Bad lighting conditions my happy ass...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Trent 0]

Maybe that poor innocent photographer has one of those new-fangled non-backlit monitors that are all the rage nowadays!

Come on! There MUST be a perfectly good reason for his poor Photoshopping!

Oh, hello again!

[Michele 1]

Quote

There MUST be a perfectly good reason for his poor Photoshopping!

LOL, there is - to make the scene look worse than it was.

I don't mind some shopping - virtually all digital shots are shopped in some manner. I sharpen, clone out a stray hair, fool around with levels or h/s to a slight degree. I've never added something that wasn't there, though...and certainly wouldn't ever consider it on an editorial shot like that, especially a shot which is in a war zone.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[nathaniel 0]

I think Western media still hasn't figured out that Western norms about honesty & integrity don't translate literally into other cultures.

Which is not to say that Western gov'ts / cultures are more or less honest than others, but that the things that Westerners are likely to be dishonest about and the ways they'll be dishonest (and how the public will fall for it) are different from other cultures.

It's not particularly accurate to just line up statements from Bushie &c and Pervez Musharraf or Ahmadinejad and call it unbiased reporting.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Michele 1]

Quote

Which is not to say that Western gov'ts / cultures are more or less honest than others, but that the things that Westerners are likely to be dishonest about and the ways they'll be dishonest (and how the public will fall for it) are different from other cultures.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

But manufacturing a photo - and having staged scenes with dead bodies so as to take photographs - to me is repugnant. maybe that's just me being western, but that's what I am, and how I feel about it.

Frankly, I don't think mainstream media is unbiased...but doctoring a photo is pretty bad...from whatever quarter it comes.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Zing 2]

Once upon a time I was a mild-mannered reporter for a metropolitan newspaper ... also a photog. It was rare to shoot a pic that didn't need some fixing up in photoshop, as noted in above post by someone.
But this guy's added smoke is, at best, amateurish ... and OBVIOUS to any photo editor. It amazes me it ever got published.
As a reporter and photog, I went with the "a picture is worth a thousand words" theory. The more space I filled with pictures, the less I had to write.
No reporter is unbiased, every photo used has an agenda.

Zing Lurks

[dorbie 0]

That smoke clone was obvious, I'd say he needs practice.

Here's another Reuters clone job that has been spotted more recently.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184206.php

Materially it changes a potentially precision strike to appear like something else entirely.... if it wasn't a flare not missiles as Reuters calls them.

I'd say Reuters has a problem here but it's only surprising it it's utter brazenness.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

That smoke clone was obvious, I'd say he needs practice.

Here's another Reuters clone job that has been spotted more recently.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184206.php

Materially it changes a potentially precision strike to appear like something else entirely.... if it wasn't a flare not missiles as Reuters calls them.

I'd say Reuters has a problem here but it's only surprising it it's utter brazenness.

I concur the photo caption was misleading. These are obviously decoy flares dropped by the f-16. However, don't these split or multiple eject? Having seen video of F-16's flying strikes nothing looks untoward with the pic itself, only the caption (supplied by the photographer) is technically wrong. Having said that, the pic, even shot through a 300mm telephoto, shows a pretty close aircraft - so yeah... It was an F-16 conducting a strike.

I'm puzzled that the original stories are being used to discredit Reuters! It was Reuters who released the original story! In effect, Reuters have cleaned up their own house, and publicly stated their actions. It's hardly grounds to attack Reuters for dishonesty when they're being so transparently honest. The whole story is about Reuters sacking a photographer for being dishonest and thus not adhering to Reuters' standards.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

... for a metropolitan newspaper ... also a photog. It was rare to shoot a pic that didn't need some fixing up in photoshop, as noted in above post by someone...

I also used to do a little snapping - back in the pre-digital age. No photoshop! no tweaking! You had to get it right on the film! Just me, my trusty F-1's & some rolls of Fuji 50!

Talking, even to "pro's", using digital, they all seem to take the "Fix-it-in-photoshop" attitude nowadays, forgetting the time when this couldn't be done.

My own feeling is that the standard of photography & in-camera technique has gone down, with folk relying on editing software to "save" an unacceptable or mediocre image.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I saw that photo published and knew it was countermeasures, regardless of the claims.

If those were even photoshopped beyond detetction I would like to point out that the plane is outrunning the missiles as they are delivered...hmmm huh?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Apparently, there has been some photoshopping of a photo showing the bombing in Beirut. Reuters published it, and then discovered the photo was 'shopped, and the photographer was fired. Link to the story

Agreed. He should have been fired. The only reason that I can think of to explain why he didn't just go get some actual shots of the devastation that Israel has caused is because he was too damn afraid of going to get them. Some people obviously don't consider the real potential consequences of their actions. He's accomplished just the opposite of what he intended and essentially provided a boost to Israel's PR campaign. Idiot.

[nathaniel 0]

In other news, at 7:12AM today a CNN website said

"40 killed in airstrike, Lebanon's PM says"

then in a striking demonstration of journalistic integrity, they changed the article at 10:30AM today to

"Lebanon's PM revises death toll from 40 to 1"

Move over George Orwell!

By contrast, the BBC keeps their old articles around so you can see how the story changes, and if / how the original published report fell for it.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Israel's PR campaign

Israel’s PR campaign is strong in the US. I heard of one isralie who was killed and the reporter on the radio spent 30 sec talking about his family and when he had moved to Israel. They make sure to put a humane face on the Israeli dead, and make the Lebanese just a number.

That has always been the case in the US.


I think we all agree that any fake news report is a bad thing.
If I were a reporter would I feel safe being in Lebanon taking pictures? Hell no Israelis have no respect for the, Peace activists, Filmmakers (death in GAZA), or the UN why would they not murder a reporter as well.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Stumpy 284]

Thats a little simplistic, photograpers always used to touch up images in the darkroom, i did it myself - dodging and burning, stuff like that. Admittedly thats not what is happening here but people tend to forget that to get the best pictures possible there has always been some element of post processing. Photoshop and digital just takes it to a new level.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[miked10270 0]

Quote

....why would they not murder a reporter as well.

I doubt if photojournalists, etc... are at any more risk than the general population.

I really don't see: "Canon Telephoto Lens at 10 O'Clock... selecting GBU-61." as likely pilot (even Israeli Pilot) commentary.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

....why would they not murder a reporter as well.

I doubt if photojournalists, etc... are at any more risk than the general population.

I really don't see: "Canon Telephoto Lens at 10 O'Clock... selecting GBU-61." as likely pilot (even Israeli Pilot) commentary.

Mike.

On the other hand, cluster bombs don't discriminate.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

That smoke clone was obvious, I'd say he needs practice.

Here's another Reuters clone job that has been spotted more recently.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184206.php

Materially it changes a potentially precision strike to appear like something else entirely.... if it wasn't a flare not missiles as Reuters calls them.

I'd say Reuters has a problem here but it's only surprising it it's utter brazenness.

I concur the photo caption was misleading. These are obviously decoy flares dropped by the f-16. However, don't these split or multiple eject? Having seen video of F-16's flying strikes nothing looks untoward with the pic itself, only the caption (supplied by the photographer) is technically wrong. Having said that, the pic, even shot through a 300mm telephoto, shows a pretty close aircraft - so yeah... It was an F-16 conducting a strike.

I'm puzzled that the original stories are being used to discredit Reuters! It was Reuters who released the original story! In effect, Reuters have cleaned up their own house, and publicly stated their actions. It's hardly grounds to attack Reuters for dishonesty when they're being so transparently honest. The whole story is about Reuters sacking a photographer for being dishonest and thus not adhering to Reuters' standards.

Mike.

No, Reuters was outed by bloggers then cleaned house. This is just another example, but this indicts the entire gathering process, you have a pool of photog's running around staging shots and in this case photoshopping images.

The flares are definitely clones by someone who thought they were bombs. An image diff shows NO difference. Aside from superficial obvious similarities, no diff and pixel level alignment of features in a smoke trail is impossible. Even if the features were identical and not a chaotic phenomenon it would still be vannishingly unlikely. Those images show a cloned trail with the smallest feature identical. IMHO the "bomb" is an internal reflection from the lens elements which has also been cloned and in the wrong place for some of the flares.

This story is in a broader context of the news gathering process in the region and the manipulation of the facts, eventually they might get out after the headlines:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/07/D8JBLITG0.html

Here's another one, the caption misleads about the time of the bombing, a 2 for 1 I suppose:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014919.php

Another 2fer:

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/extreme-makeover-beirut-edition.html

But maybe you think it's just fine to run around posing with the corpses of dead kids throwing them on & off gurneys and in and out of ambulances to get the right shot, to lie to the world if it's a means to an end. Whatever your thoughts on this it should not be presented as news.

[dorbie 0]

Yanked:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

But maybe you think it's just fine to run around posing with the corpses of dead kids throwing them on & off gurneys and in and out of ambulances to get the right shot, to lie to the world if it's a means to an end. Whatever your thoughts on this it should not be presented as news.

On a gurney, under a pile of rubble, on the ground, in an ambulance, held up in the air.....what do these all have in common?
A DEAD KID!!!!
I can hear the next one. "Hey, the report said the infant was blown to pieces. That's BULLSHIT! Only his arms and legs were gone. His head is clearly attached to his torso, which appears completely unscathed I might add. Damn liberal bias". (insert witty/detracting/discrediting deliberate mispronunciation of media source's name)

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

But maybe you think it's just fine to run around posing with the corpses of dead kids throwing them on & off gurneys and in and out of ambulances to get the right shot, to lie to the world if it's a means to an end. Whatever your thoughts on this it should not be presented as news.

On a gurney, under a pile of rubble, on the ground, in an ambulance, held up in the air.....what do these all have in common?
A DEAD KID!!!!
I can hear the next one. "Hey, the report said the infant was blown to pieces. That's BULLSHIT! Only his arms and legs were gone. His head is clearly attached to his torso, which appears completely unscathed I might add. Damn liberal bias". (insert witty/detracting/discrediting deliberate mispronunciation of media source's name)

If that was the point then there would be no need for embellishment would there?

Photoshopped images, lying captions, duplicated images days later and posed photos, no bias?

Why do it? Why defend it?

P.S. yea and it's biased and wrong of anyone to point any of this out of course.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

But maybe you think it's just fine to run around posing with the corpses of dead kids throwing them on & off gurneys and in and out of ambulances to get the right shot, to lie to the world if it's a means to an end. Whatever your thoughts on this it should not be presented as news.

One... ONE!!! local freelance photographer has been found to be submitting manipulated images - so he's been exposed & sacked.

Trying to extrapolate this into ALL the news coverage of this conflict seems more like attacking the news agencies in an effort to deny the truth of what's happening there.

The "White-Hat / Black-Hat" syndrome has been engendered by Hollywood & other fictional media over the years. Some people really want one side to be the right-thinking, right-doing heroes - just like Captain Kirk & Starfleet... Leaving the other side to be the Evil-Slinking-Villains who only deserve eradication... Preferably within 118 minutes.

This nicely sidesteps the truth, viz: A bunch of inadequate, self-appointed-avengers who think that lashing out and harming the "other-side" will somehow end this conflict while conveniently ignoring the fact that they are all simply fuelling it. There are NO "good-guys" in the current Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.