Reuters Slants pictures to make Israel look bad. - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

jolinar of malkshor · 08-08-2006, 09:50 PM

Reuters has pulled more than 900 photos after two of them were found to have been doctored to make it look as though Israel is doing more damage to Hezbollah than they actually did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ5Rj4yBGdU

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4100907.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5746

I wonder how many have gotten by that look a lot more realistic,

Lanny,

Is there a conspiracy going on between these left wing news agencies to make Israel seem like they are doing things they arem't?

FlamesAddiction · 08-08-2006, 10:02 PM

That's a pretty misleading thread title.

Reuters wasn't slanting anything. A freelance photographer that was contracted by Reuters was altering photos, and was since fired by Reuters once they found out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm

Reggie Dunlop · 08-08-2006, 10:08 PM

Man, that's the saddest Photoshop clone tool job I've ever seen.

I can understand darkening the shadows to make a more contrasty image, but the plumes of smoke is a dead giveaway.

CaptainCrunch · 08-08-2006, 10:11 PM

Thats what I thought when I first saw the pictures. I was thinking "Crunch, they must have weird weather patterns over there, because I've never seen smoke patterns like that"

A big part of war is how media savvy your side can be. Israel is not very good at it, Hamas and Hezbollah are very good at it.

FlamesAddiction · 08-08-2006, 10:21 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I don't look at the altered photo and think; "Gee, that looks like the Israeli attacks are so much worse than in the original photo!"

It was really a waste of time for that photographer if that was his goal.

Table 5 · 08-08-2006, 10:25 PM

haha, thats horrible photochop. who would even believe that?

Reggie Dunlop · 08-08-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

haha, thats horrible photochop. who would even believe that?

Considering Photoshop has fairly sophisticated cloning tools now, no kidding.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-08-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe it's just me, but I don't look at the altered photo and think; "Gee, that looks like the Israeli attacks are so much worse than in the original photo!"

It was really a waste of time for that photographer if that was his goal.

I agree but it got past the reuters editors so it makes you wonder what else they are letting by.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-08-2006, 10:33 PM

I don't think the alterations would have done much to sway public opinion, but imagin if you get a pro in there. I have also heard that another photogragher aadd a bunch of building into a picture to make it seem like a crowded area.

Reggie Dunlop · 08-08-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree but it got past the reuters editors so it makes you wonder what else they are letting by.

Did it? Did it hit print?

Any photo editor worth his salt would have rejected it outright. Someone submits 900 photos, sure some duds may make the database.

I would be surprised if this doctored photo was actually published.

FlamesAddiction · 08-08-2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree but it got past the reuters editors so it makes you wonder what else they are letting by.

True. I think they should definitely find out exactly what their editors do all day, if not looking for things like this.

As mentioned, it was so obvious that this photo was altered, the editor deserves as much blame.

Reggie Dunlop · 08-08-2006, 10:45 PM

I think the only story here is a dumbass photographer.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-08-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Did it? Did it hit print?

Any photo editor worth his salt would have rejected it outright. Someone submits 900 photos, sure some duds may make the database.

I would be surprised if this doctored photo was actually published.

Yes it did hit print. The same guy that outed the fake letter about GWB and his service with the airforce was the one that blew the whistle. He did say it only took reuters 24 hours to take down the pictures compared to CBS and the time it took them to admit that the letter was a forgery.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-08-2006, 10:47 PM

What about the fighter jet and the missles. These are just two obvious ones that were caughter by the public. How many others get by?

Reggie Dunlop · 08-08-2006, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes it did hit print.

Okay I have to ask, where?

And how exactly does this enhance the story? Plumes of smoke are plumes of smoke, are they not?

Especially plumes of smoke that suddenly follow a semi-geometric pattern?

Something is amiss here, and I categorically call it as professional miscue devoid of political agenda.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-08-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Okay I have to ask, where?

And how exactly does this enhance the story? Plumes of smoke are plumes of smoke, are they not?

Especially plumes of smoke that suddenly follow a semi-geometric pattern?

Something is amiss here, and I categorically call it as professional miscue devoid of political agenda.

It was reported on reuters website. They took it down now but just having the pictures on verious websites shows that the story hit print. Did you read the links that I posted?

As I have said on another post, I agree that a few darker smoke clouds does little to sway the public one way or the other put it was done. Also adding several added missles to a picture does nothing but try to show an image that Israel is firing willy nilly into Lebanon.

Like you say, these picture have very little meaning what I am worried about is what else has gotten out that has been doctored. Ones done by proffessionals and we wouldn't be able to tell.

Either the editors at routers are incompetent or want the images slanting the actual facts.

Reggie Dunlop · 08-08-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It was reported on reuters website.

What was reported? The story of the altered photo or the photo itself accompaning a news story?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

They took it down now but just having the pictures on verious websites shows that the story hit print.

Which websites?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Did you read the links that I posted?

Reported after the fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As I have said on another post, I agree that a few darker smoke clouds does little to sway the public one way or the other put it was done.

Darkening the shadows adds contrast. Not an unimportant visual consideration. Makes the photo look better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Also adding several added missles to a picture does nothing but try to show an image that Israel is firing willy nilly into Lebanon.

I really don't know what you're talking about. It's about smoke plumes, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Like you say, these picture have very little meaning what I am worried about is what else has gotten out that has been doctored. Ones done by proffessionals and we wouldn't be able to tell.

Here's a heads-up: They all get caught. Doesn't matter if it's a Beriut building being bombarded or a ribbon-cutting at a local dog show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Either the editors at routers are incompetent or want the images slanting the actual facts.

I'd wager that a few slipped by the Reuters photo editors. It happens. Point the finger of blame at the photographer.

Bobblehead · 08-08-2006, 11:16 PM

Here is Reuter's response

Quote:

LONDON (Reuters) - Reuters withdrew all 920 photographs by a freelance Lebanese photographer from its database on Monday after an urgent review of his work showed he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hizbollah.

Quote:

An immediate enquiry began into Hajj's other work.
It established on Monday that a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter over Nabatiyeh, southern Lebanon and dated Aug 2, had also been doctored to increase the number of flares dropped by the plane from one to three.

FlamesAddiction · 08-08-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Also adding several added missles to a picture does nothing but try to show an image that Israel is firing willy nilly into Lebanon.

And by "several", you mean 2?

Don't you see the irony in saying Reuters, and the photographer were slanting the news, while you are slanting the news as well?

Jayems · 08-08-2006, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And by "several", you mean 2?

Don't you see the irony in saying Reuters, and the photographer were slanting the news, while you are slanting the news as well?

I don't know which you two are arguing about, but in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ5Rj4yBGdU

they do show / highlight / circle several supposed additions to a photograph which appear to be missiles.