Reuters Slants pictures to make Israel look bad. - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bleeding Red · 08-09-2006, 06:35 AM

Yes, adding some smoke or an extra missle may seem inconsequential and you could could chalk it up to 'regular' bias for the underdog by an overzealous local photographer.

The reality is that these are just glaring examples of media manipulation by those who have an interest in depicting Israel as a careless warmongering state.

"CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah's "press officer" and that Hizbullah have "very, very sophisticated and slick media operations."

http://http://article.nationalreview...Q4OGQxMDA1YjQ=

Other manipulations being reported - constant filming of the same destroyed area, but labeling it a different neighbourhood each time, so as to make it look as though dozens of areas are now rubble when in fact it is only a few buildings; The same child on a streacher being carried past the same destroyed building by different streacher-bearers for different news agencies.

And yes, you could point out that these links are to pro-Israel sites that have their own motive for distributing these reports, but when a CBS reporter comments that "Hizbullah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see." and a Time magazine reporter notes in his posting that "The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one." clearly not just the pro-Israel sites are catching this.

Hard to report the truth when you are wondering what terrorists will do to you or your family later.

Lanny_MacDonald · 08-09-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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?

I don't know, you tell me. It seems that you think so. Or is it an instance of the RW media waving their arms about an honest mistake blowing it up to something it isn't? Rueters has been taking it on the chin, and its all a result of a photo editor not doing his job and checking each photo. NPR crucified them yesterday. You have to give Rueters credit, they at least pulled the photos and admitted their error, even if it was really easy to see they were doctored. I don't see any of the RW media sources doing that when they get caught spreading their doctored version of events.

calculoso · 08-09-2006, 07:52 AM

I read this column by Calgary Sun columnist Licia Corbella yesterday. There are some exaggerations in her story, but it sure makes its point. How much of the "news" can you believe anymore?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...24171-sun.html

calculoso · 08-09-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Or is it an instance of the RW media waving their arms about an honest mistake blowing it up to something it isn't?

Honest mistake?

" In this blog, the same child is seen being carried by three different men in their rush to get the obviously dead child to an ambulance. The photos were clearly staged for each different photographer over several hours.

Did the photographers know this? It's hard to know. "

Sure it's a blog... but when news and situations are deliberately doctored like that to fool the general public, it sure isn't anything that can be labeled an honest mistake. If you meant an honest mistake by the photographers (didn't know that they were being manipulated) then I'll concede that you are probably correct, although I wouldn't lump in the original photographer into those who are honest.

Also: "Yesterday, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora initially said 40 people were killed in an Israeli air strike in Marjayoun. Oops. Slight exaggeration. Actually five people were killed."

Wonder how many people have REALLY been killed in this war....

(all quotes from Licia's story linked above)

Bobblehead · 08-09-2006, 08:14 AM

The coverage is starting to be srutinized a bit more tightly. Questions about all this specific photographers photos are being asked, and one of his photos (of a dead child, I don't know if it is the same on the the story Calculoso references) was a front page photo in some newspapers.

In another case, there is a photo of a lady screaming outside her destroyed home in Beirut, but there is another photo, with the same caption, but taken in another spot a week later. She is either very unlucky, or posing for these photographs.

I think we are seeing many organizations have realized if you control the media you can control the story and public perception. This is only the latest example.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-09-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I don't know, you tell me. It seems that you think so. Or is it an instance of the RW media waving their arms about an honest mistake blowing it up to something it isn't? Rueters has been taking it on the chin, and its all a result of a photo editor not doing his job and checking each photo. NPR crucified them yesterday. You have to give Rueters credit, they at least pulled the photos and admitted their error, even if it was really easy to see they were doctored. I don't see any of the RW media sources doing that when they get caught spreading their doctored version of events.

Ya, I don't think there is any collution going on but I do think that a lot of these news agencies are making altered news stories. And it happens at both ends of the political spectrum.

FlamesAddiction · 08-09-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

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.

Some of the pictures in that "youtube" compilation are not the ones that have been proven to be fake. According to the BBC link I posted, the one that was altered had 2 flares added. Some of the photos shown in the "youtube" video are not the ones that were proven to be altered. Funny that, the person who made that video is practically doing the same thing they are crying out against.

Who are you going to believe... random youtube video by anonymous person, or BBC?

FlamesAddiction · 08-09-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

I read this column by Calgary Sun columnist Licia Corbella yesterday. There are some exaggerations in her story, but it sure makes its point. How much of the "news" can you believe anymore?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...24171-sun.html

This has been my realization since 1985.

And people wonder why I am so skeptical about going to war over things the media hypes up.

Lanny_MacDonald · 08-09-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

Honest mistake?

Don't get your panties in a bunch. The honest mistake was on Rueter's part, not on the photographers. Rueters trusted that their photo editor did his job and signed off on the photo. Honest mistake. It's not like they intentionally with held information to make an advertiser look bad or float a story they knew to be propaganda. I'm sure that photo editor is now looking for a new line of work because of his error.

Lanny_MacDonald · 08-09-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ya, I don't think there is any collution going on but I do think that a lot of these news agencies are making altered news stories. And it happens at both ends of the political spectrum.

Yes, it most certainly does, but the problem is that the majority of the media is now controlled by corporate entities and no longer have the fairness doctrine to force impartiality. The new media is kicking the established media's asses all over the place, and the new media is all owned and operated by the same corporate interests who are entrenched with the right wing. I don't know how the problem can be fixed. Only the Democrats can make the change, because the Republicans have no reason to see the Fairness Doctrine re-endoctrinated (so to speak).

White Doors · 08-09-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Don't get your panties in a bunch. The honest mistake was on Rueter's part, not on the photographers. Rueters trusted that their photo editor did his job and signed off on the photo. Honest mistake. It's not like they intentionally with held information to make an advertiser look bad or float a story they knew to be propaganda. I'm sure that photo editor is now looking for a new line of work because of his error.

An honest mistake now, can you imagine Lanny's reaction if the 'mistake' was in Israel's favour?

telling

jolinar of malkshor · 08-09-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

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

From what I have read it was a story posted by reuters with those pictures.

Quote:

Which websites?

Reuters has removed the website or link to the story.

Quote:

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

It was much more than darkening the shadows.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...archive=082006

Quote:

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

That and also a Israeli jet firing flares. You must not have looked at the links I posted.

Quote:

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.

You are wearing rose coloured glasses if you think every one gets caught when they do something wrong. Come on.

Quote:

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

The finger needs to be pointed at both.

calculoso · 08-09-2006, 10:30 AM

Update:
Link from CNET News

"Hajj told Reuters he was merely trying to remove a speck of dust and fix the lighting in the photos"

""On Saturday, we published 2,000 photos," Holmes said. "It was handled by someone on a very busy day at a more junior level than we would wish for in ideal circumstances." He said this aspect of the problem was the result of "human error," not malicious intent."

"The agency has tightened its procedures so all photos from the Mideast are now reviewed by senior editors."

Lanny_MacDonald · 08-09-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The finger needs to be pointed at both.

Seems to me that the finger is being pointed at both, and that Reuters has made an admission of thier error as soon as they found out about it. Reuters has taken steps to correct the issue. The photographer in question has had his catelogue pulled and the photo editor has likely lost his job. Reuter's takes a kick in the nuts on the issue. They stood up and got grilled by all comers because they believe that they should admit their mistakes and continue to try and provide the news in as fair way as possible. What else can they do?

Again, this is not a deception committed BY Reuters, but them passing along information that they thought was on the up and up. As soon as they found out about the matter they pulled the information. Seems that they care as much about the integrity of the information they aprovide as you do. If they were the ones that doctored the photos I would say hang them. The photographer in question will never work in that industry again. His work will never be trusted as authentic, so he has been sanctioned. I guess you have to ask yourself, what else can be done? It is not like Reuters did not immediately take corrective actions and admit wrong doing. What do you suggest they do?

calculoso · 08-09-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I guess you have to ask yourself, what else can be done? It is not like Reuters did not immediately take corrective actions and admit wrong doing. What do you suggest they do?

I know! Never hire junior staff!

I'm with you. Reuters has made every step to show that they care about the quality and authenticity of their photos. They didn't try to sweep anything under the carpet, nor did they delay in making a decision.

Other than doing a detailed inspection of every photo by numerous people, or find some automatic way to do it, I don't see what else they can do.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-09-2006, 11:42 AM

Did you guys take a look at this blog. There was more than just touch ups going on.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...archive=082006

Bobblehead · 08-09-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Did you guys take a look at this blog. There was more than just touch ups going on.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...archive=082006

Yeah, but as soon as it was discovered it was faked, the photographer was turfed and all his photos pulled. Reuters can be blamed for it getting through initially, but they have appeared to have done everything they could do to reasonably address the issue.

If you want to blame Reuters futher, you need to prove some complicity, and I doubt you will find it.

The Miami Herald's Spanish sister paper admitted to doctoring photos a couple weeks ago.

Lanny_MacDonald · 08-09-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Did you guys take a look at this blog. There was more than just touch ups going on.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...archive=082006

Well, there's a non-biased blog. And I'm accused of being a conspiracy theorist!

Speaking of staged photos, someone should remnd this guy of certain photo ops that have been leaned on heavily in the past few years.

calculoso · 08-09-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Did you guys take a look at this blog. There was more than just touch ups going on.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...archive=082006

Looks like a very extreme and one-sided blog.

jolinar of malkshor · 08-09-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Yeah, but as soon as it was discovered it was faked, the photographer was turfed and all his photos pulled. Reuters can be blamed for it getting through initially, but they have appeared to have done everything they could do to reasonably address the issue.

If you want to blame Reuters futher, you need to prove some complicity, and I doubt you will find it.

The Miami Herald's Spanish sister paper admitted to doctoring photos a couple weeks ago.

My main point was that the editing was so poor Reuters should have picked up on it and didn't, so where they trying to hid something or not? Don't know. Yes they took down the pictures ASAP as they were so obvious no one would have kept them up. I guess I should have put Reuters Photographer slants pictures, if I you can change it let me know.