Steeler

It's not an issue of trust. I think I've made my position clear.

__________________

leejo

More schenanigans from Lebannon

Serious snifter clink to the bloggers.

leejo

And 40 dead becomes 1 dead. Sadly, the truth is far less interesting than the original story.

Is there a pattern here? Does anyone see a pattern? I see a pattern.

CingularDuality

Not very clear. If it's not an issue of trust, then what is it that garners your continued support in light of the recent series of intentionally falsified representations of reality?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

Why are you assuming I'm "supporting" anyone? I said I'm not defending anyone. I'm curious as to why a shoddy photo manipulation that DOESN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE AESTHETIC OR FACTUAL CONTENT OF THE PHOTO made it into the mainstream press. You're reacting as if this were a Hearst "Remember the Maine" moment. If this is supposed to be evidence of propaganda, it's the most nonsensical and pointless propaganda I've ever seen.

But by all means, let's take "sides" on this issue. Jeebus.

__________________

USN_Squid

Yet another fake photo by the same photographer: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184206.php And this is the same guy that took the photos of dead civilians in Qana.

Both of those photos were doctored to make them appear more dramatic; more firepower, more smoke and damage, etc. Sensationalism for the sake of a dramatic photo? Maybe, but then couple with the fact that he is a local stringer freelance photographer and is the same one associated with the Qana mess I think there is more going on.

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.

__________________

CingularDuality

I just don't understand your position. Do you not see how these alterations are attempting to garner sympathy for Lebanon/Hezbollah?

And regardless of that, do you not see a problem with a large news organization allowing such a series of mistakes to be published?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

In terms of this one photo we are discussing, no I don't. It is a facile and pointless manipulation.

And then retracted. Large news organizations are clearing houses for copy and images, the veracity of which are only as reliable as the people maintaining the flow of information, checking the stories, and moving them along the pipeline. I am an old critic of the inefficiency and laziness of news reporting as it moves between the frontline reporters and the client media outlets. But I'm resistant to placing such mistakes into a larger political context unless there is some clear and convincing evidence that the powers that be are attempting to sway public opinion one way or another. Certainly the system lends itself to abuse (from all parties), but in many ways it is also self-correcting (especially with the advent of Internet scrutiny).

If this one photographer is skewing information, then as we can see, he has already been removed from AP's employ. We're talking about a problem with internal technical elements of the newsgathering process, and AP will have to sort through that internally. Shorter: Mountains from molehills.

__________________

USN_Squid

No harm done then I guess? I wonder how this photo from the same photographer will be played out in the middle East? Oh, what am I worried about, I'm sure there will be a retraction?

Yes, it's a Koran still burning hours after an Israeli air strike. Boy that guy sure is lucky!

__________________

leejo

It's not just one photog Steeler. You're not looking at these stories closely enough. It's multiple photographers and multiple news organizations. Then there's the story I just posted in which the 40 dead became 1 dead, but the 40 ran with a three page story and the retraction was a 1 sentence blurb.

The MSM will earn some cool points if they do a mea culpa and write extensively about how they've been duped here, but to me, and I think many other observers, this has the Rathergate stamp on it. People in these organizations (and who get information from them) who wish badly to have their prejudice justified have been eager to accept any agreeable story fed them.

I think a little less focus on how all of this is inconsequential and a little more introspection about how we've been fed a steaming pile of lies, and by whom, might be in order. At the very least, the media needs to explain how it is going to gain assurance that it's telling the truth, more or less. When Newsweek ran the Gitmo story, their subsequent retraction didn't bring any of the dead back. These images are not harmless, and too often the retractions are too little, too late.

Steeler

Ah yes, I forgot, they are all anti-semites, of course.

You don't trust the media anyway. No matter what they do or say.

__________________

leejo

I didn't say that, and I don't think that. I do think that there's an anti-Israel bias that isn't anti-semetic.

No I don't trust the same media you do. And I don't trust them "no matter what they do or say". I don't trust them BECAUSE of what they do and say.

TheFatKidDeath

Yikes! Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Clear Channel, New York Times, Reuters, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA Today, the LA Times and all our local television affiliates and any other mainstream new organzation are all pro-Hezbollah?


Doesn't surprise me, these are the same organizations that are so blantly bias in it's coverage of the US invasion of Iraq:


"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)


"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)


"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)


"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)


"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/13/03)


"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)


"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)


The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)


"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)


"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)


We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03


"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)


This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)


Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)


"If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?"
(CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)


I'll be watching you, mainstream media, you won't get away with your pro-terrorist coverage this time!

Lucky Shot

Nice! Only had to dig back to 2003 to find it all those optimistic Iraq comments by the dinosaur media. I haven't followed the media as closely on the Israel/Hezbollah war, but I have heard about the discrepancies. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...287774,00.html . I guess it wouldn't be so bad if Rueters didn't have employees sending death threats to those who support Israel. Perhaps an anomaly... http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...256534,00.html

Rueters did finally remove the photographer's photos and fire the employee issuing death threats. Everyone has biases, and it's fair to ask what kind of bias Rueters hires for.

Lucky Shot

TheFatKidDeath

Double Yikes! Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Clear Channel, New York Times, Reuters, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA Today, the LA Times and all our local television affiliates and any other mainstream new organzation are all dinosaurs? Get me Rupert Murdoch at once! Not only is his company a dinosaur but he's a pro-Hezbollah apologist!

Let's make a sweeping indictment of the "mainstream" stream as a pro-Hezbollah mouthpiece because one or two photographers doctored some photographs and were quickly fired. OK, the photographers are biased - does a rational person believe that Rueters has a pro-Hezbollah agenda?

Look at the web site - half the page is Investing and Business sections.

http://today.reuters.com/news/home.aspx?refresh=true

The markets want Hezbollah to win! Wall Street loves radical Islam! Let's hire a pro-Hezbollah anti-Israel photographer our advertisers will love it!

It's ridiculous.