rofl...

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

Quote :

"Reuters admits altering Beirut photo Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged Yaakov Lappin A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage. The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors. Reuters withdraws doctored image In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience." Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures." "As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software," she added. Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog , which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote : "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image." Johnson added: "Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it." Speaking to Ynetnews, Johnson said: "This has to cast doubt not only on the photographer who did the alterations, but on Reuters' entire review process. If they could let such an obvious fake get through to publication, how many more faked or 'enhanced' photos have not been caught?" A series of close ups are then posted on the blog, showing that "it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were 'enhanced.' There are also cloned buildings." The close ups do appear to show exact replicas of buildings appearing next to one another in the photograph. The Sports Shooter web forum , used by professional photographers, also examined the photo, with many users concluding that the image has been doctored. Threat From Reuters 'Looks so obviously doctored' "I'll second the cloned smoke...but it looks so obvious that I don't know how the photographer could have gotten away with it," wrote one user. After further research, Johnson posted a photograph he says is the original image taken before distortions were made, showing much lighter smoke rising. Other blogs have also analyzed the photographs, and reached similar conclusions, such as Left & Right , which states: "The photo has been doctored, quite badly." The author of the Ace of Spades blog wrote: "Even I can see the very suspicious "clonings" of picture elements here. And I'm an idiot." The Hot Air blog also looked at the photo, describing the image as "the worst Photoshop I have ever seen." Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged. "A photographer who would blatantly falsify an entire 'news' image would certainly not be above posing and staging photographs of rescue workers," Johnson concluded. First Published: 08.06.06, 10:41 Latest Update: 08.06.06, 20:00"

8/6/2006 1:11:38 PM

After dating a newspaper journalist I was surprised at how much photos were altered on a regular basis and how there are still no clear guidelines on how much touching up is ethical.

8/6/2006 1:13:12 PM

omg, one guy does something sketchy and it proves that liberals are immoral and run the media!

8/6/2006 1:13:43 PM

I don't see the big difference between the two.

8/6/2006 1:15:33 PM

I wonder what Paul Cousins has to say about this.

8/6/2006 2:20:34 PM

DEATH TO THE LEFT-WING INFIDELS!

8/6/2006 2:38:10 PM

I would't have expected this from TGD.

8/6/2006 2:56:46 PM

Quote :

"Waluigi: omg, one guy does something sketchy and it proves that liberals are immoral and run the media!"

you make it sound like this is the first doctored photo from a "reputable" and "unbiased" newswire service...

8/6/2006 3:24:20 PM

WIPE OUT THE LEFTIST INFIDELS! FOR TRUTH!

8/6/2006 3:34:39 PM

this is completely expected, but why shouldnt it be? the media didnt even report on the iranian meetings with hugo chavez and venezuela last week, something of dire importance to our hemisphere's safety.

8/6/2006 3:35:58 PM

Maybe you didn't get the memo. Imperialist George Bush is the only threat to our hemisphere. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are just trying to formulate a peaceful end to the Palestine situation.

8/6/2006 3:53:05 PM

yes, we must defeat the capitalist imperial aggressor george w. bush and instate worldwide solidarity of the people (through strict governmental control of the worlds ecnomies, of course!). thats why im voting democrat this year!

8/6/2006 4:06:59 PM

8/6/2006 4:09:26 PM

countdown to treetwista putting up that cnn pic of "12 of 13 miners survive"

8/6/2006 4:46:05 PM

Quote :

"omg, one guy does something sketchy and it proves that liberals are immoral and run the media!"

I admit that this doesn't prove any full-scale corruption in all of media, but I do think this does point out that some problems exist. Dan Rather's whole fiasco, this, and that Times guy that was just making shit up mean we can no longer take highly respected journalism as seriously as we used to.

8/6/2006 5:07:59 PM

let's not forget the quality of the right wing in this mess.

8/6/2006 5:08:47 PM

its left wing cause only artsy fags know how to photoshop

8/6/2006 5:10:14 PM

lol, Well we're commenting on a story when someone fairly left-wing did it, but feel free to add comparable examples where right wingers blatantly made shit up to make things look differently on a supposedly unbiased news source like Reuters

8/6/2006 5:15:28 PM

Quote :

"supposedly unbiased news source "

every news source is biased by the simple fact that they can't report everything and must choose what's "important"

8/6/2006 5:55:35 PM

The thing is, they retracted it. They publicly said, "Oops, one of us is a moron. Our apologies. He'll be fired shortly."

I don't get how you people claim bias when all the examples of manipulation have led to firings and shake-ups. They actively fight manipulation, which is inevitable in such a large group of people.

Meanwhile I've yet to see a single "conservative" outlet ever make a retraction for all the ridiculous crap they get away with.

8/6/2006 6:13:33 PM

Quote :

"lol, Well we're commenting on a story when someone fairly left-wing did it, but feel free to add comparable examples where right wingers blatantly made shit up to make things look differently on a supposedly unbiased news source like Reuters"

how in the world do you know the person was "left-wing?"

8/6/2006 6:15:52 PM

Quote :

"but feel free to add comparable examples where right wingers blatantly made shit up to make things look differently on a supposedly unbiased news source like Reuters"

I'm probably to the right of most people on here, but that sir, is a bullshit statement. Here's a 'shopped pic that of Bush's 2004 campaign stops, courtesy of the GOP.



And here's another one that California GOP hopeful Howard Kaloogian posted of a peaceful and tranquil Baghdad. Only problem is, it was taken in Istanbul



/Equal opportunity hater

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2006 6:33:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm probably to the right of most people on here, but that sir, is a bullshit statement. Here's a 'shopped pic that of Bush's 2004 campaign stops, courtesy of the GOP. "

My statement was "feel free to add examples" not "no examples exist"

So blow me, before you call the statement bullshit.

Also,

Quote :

"I don't get how you people claim bias when all the examples of manipulation have led to firings and shake-ups. They actively fight manipulation, which is inevitable in such a large group of people."

Boondocks, you're smarter than this. Not every lie told gets found out. So telling us "well they fired the dude, so that means everything is ok" is off base. Its impossible for us to know how many of these lies get told that go unnoticed. Fortunately (for both sides of the aisle) the blogosphere is on the task to try to minimize it.

8/6/2006 8:35:05 PM

^ hahahaha I dont think thats logical.

8/6/2006 8:39:13 PM

^Point taken in that it gets perpetuated by bloggers as well...but I'm talking about them telling me when Reuters is lying and then proving it.

I don't take blogs seriously otherwise. (they can't just claim shit, I mean)

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 8:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2006 8:48:32 PM

Yep, sounds like about as vast a left-wing media conspiracy as I can imagine. One in which a lowly photographer with terrorist sympathies (which of course, makes him a lefty, not a disgusting, authoritarian theocrat...) who's lucky enough to slip a doctored photo across an editor's desk in order to buttress an as yet totally unproven liberal agenda has already been fired, not protected by those above him, and his photo removed and replaced by a corrected version.

salisburyboy couldn't have cooked one up better than this.

How do you explain Reuters' public self-flogging despite a complete lack of evidence of what you're insinuating, and assuming about this photographer's intentions?

From the Reuters article linked from their homepage right now:

Quote :

"He was among several photographers from the main international news agencies whose images of a dead child being held up by a rescuer in the village of Qana, south Lebanon, after an Israeli air strike on July 30 have been challenged by blogs critical of the mainstream media's coverage of the Middle East conflict."

So...since he's editing pictures presumably to support Hezbollah's position, he's somehow a participant in the grand left-wing media conspiracy?

I'm afraid I'm going to need you to diagram that connection out for me.

When you're done, please explain how this was done:

Quote :

"Reuters and other news organizations reviewed those images and have all rejected allegations that the photographs were staged."

You might try and be cute and suggest those other news organizations include the Nation, CBS, and the NY Times. I'll go ahead and ask you what makes you think they wouldn't expect to get caught doing that by the same 101st Blogging Brigade?

I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree.

---

A larger point I'm curious for comments about.

What is so enraging about a photo being altered for a terrorist's political agenda?

We're constantly battered with altered pictures of people with altered appearances whose job it is to palatably deliver altered information to us. The difference between the two is that the alterations to the information in the latter example are done to support a pre-defined "right" (i.e. America is #1, God/Buddha/The Sun God is Good) or at least "acceptable" (Eat Wendy's, Shop WalMart, Drive Toyotas) agenda, whereas the other (blow up people) is neither.

Reuters let someone get through who was too impassioned toward the wrong or unacceptable agenda for your tastes, and that's fine, but I just don't see how Reuters can prevent something like this from happening.

8/6/2006 9:19:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't get how you people claim bias when all the examples of manipulation have led to firings and shake-ups. They actively fight manipulation, which is inevitable in such a large group of people. "

oh thats funny because i never saw you saying that about abu graib

8/6/2006 9:38:41 PM

oh thats funny because I never saw memos from Reuters' headquarters redefining the definition of photo alteration.

8/7/2006 12:29:54 AM

Quote :

"I wonder what Paul Cousins has to say about this."

ftw

8/7/2006 12:40:28 AM

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B978DA861-FA67-4F8B-998C-33C75AC26AF8%7D

hehe

8/7/2006 1:37:16 AM

These have to be the sharpest editors -- evah.

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

Quote :

"Reuters admits to more image manipulation News organization withdraws photograph of Israeli fighter jet, admits image was doctored, fires photographer. Reuters pledges 'tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict' Yaakov Lappin Reuters has withdrawn a second photograph and admitted that the image was doctored, following the emergence of new suspicions against images provided by the news organization. On Sunday, Reuters admitted that one of its photographers, Adnan Hajj, used software to distort an image of smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut in order to create the effect of more smoke and damage. The latest image to face doubts is a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter jet over the skies of Lebanon, seen in the image firing off "missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh," according to the image's accompanying text provided by Reuters. The owner of the My Pet Jawa web log noted that the warplane in the picture is actually firing defensive flares aimed at dealing with anti-aircraft missiles. In addition, Shackelford says the flares have been replicated by Reuters, giving the impression that the jet was firing many "missiles," thereby distortion the image. "The F-16 in the photo is not firing missiles, but is rather dropping chaffe or flares designed to be a decoy for surface to air missiles. However, a close up (of) what Hajj calls "missiles" reveals that only one flare has been dropped. The other two "flares" are simply copies of the original," Shackleford wrote. "But what about the 'bombs' in the photo? Here is a close up of them. Notice anything? That's right. The top and bottom "bomb" are the same." Following the accusations, Reuters conceded that a second image it provided had been manipulated, and released a statement saying it had recalled all photos by Hajj. "Reuters has withdrawn from its database all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj after establishing that he had altered two images since the start of the conflict between Israel and the Lebanese Hizbullah group," the statement said. The news outlet said that it discovered "in the last 24 hours that he (Hajj) altered two photographs since the beginning of the conflict between Israel and the Lebanese group Hizbullah," Reuters added. “There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image", Reuters' statement quoted Tom Szlukovenyi, Reuters Global Picture Editor, as saying. 'Tighter editing needed' Reuters also said it would apply "tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict to ensure that no photograph from the region would be transmitted to subscribers without review by the most senior editor on the Reuters Global Pictures Desk." "Reuters terminated its relationship with Hajj on Sunday... An immediate enquiry began into Hajj’s other work," the statement said. Hajj had provided Reuters with several images from the Lebanese village of Qana, many of which have also been suspected of being staged . Other Reuters images have been called into question by blogs in the United States. A reader of the Power Line blog , Robert Opalecky, wrote: "I don't know if this has been brought to anyone's attention yet, but in a quick search of the authenticated Reuters photographs attributed to Adnan Hajj, I found the following two." "One is from July 24 of a bombed out area in Beirut, with a clearly identifiable building in a prominent part of the shot. The second is of the exact same area, same buildings, same condition, with a woman walking past "a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006," he wrote. A film released on the YouTube video sharing website compares the two images, and appears to show striking similarities between the photograph used by Reuters on both July 24 and August 5."

 

8/7/2006 3:07:56 PM

wow, images altered by partisan photographers in the middle east who must be liberal.

more like reuters didnt background check the sources. oh wait, thats not right.

THIS IS ALL A CONSPIRACY TO MAKE THE US LOOK BAD.

Never before has there been such a well-spoken troll.

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2006 3:15:44 PM

"omg, one guy does something sketchy and it proves that liberals are immoral and run the media!" OMG, Waluigi, you must be fucking kidding me! Witness the following "doctored" situation that broke just this week and one from recent years (ever heard of Jayson Blair?):

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/03/gates-interview-fake-cx_po_0803autofacescan03.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2082741/

8/7/2006 3:22:14 PM

If they are coming forward, voluntarily pulling photos, and firing photographers, its not really any kind of left-wing conspiracy.

8/7/2006 3:27:12 PM

^its just that they got caught this time

8/7/2006 3:33:16 PM

OMG, A NORWEGIAN GUY FAKING AN INTERVIEW WITH BILL GATES PROVES LIBERAL CONTROL OF THE MEDIA!

AND JAYSON BLAIR...ISNT HE THE ONE THAT STARTED THE "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" CATCHPHRASE? MORE LIBERAL CONTROL!

8/7/2006 3:34:18 PM

Quote :

"If they are coming forward, voluntarily pulling photos, and firing photographers, its not really any kind of left-wing conspiracy."

thats funny - no one said that about abu graib

8/7/2006 3:42:36 PM

you know the poster of this thread loves to point out logical fallacies, yet this very thread is based on the premise that the doctoring of photos in this case somehow represents something overtly "left wing". what is this assumption based on?

8/7/2006 3:45:28 PM

probably based on the same assumption that leads one to accuse Bush/Rumsfeld of war crimes because of Abu Graib

8/7/2006 3:46:31 PM

>o >o

8/7/2006 3:47:55 PM

I'm confused, were there doctored photos at Abu Graib?

8/7/2006 3:50:44 PM

where is the connection b/w liberals and these photos? well, liberals want to make sure bush looks bad in all of his efforts. we've seen him attacked time and time again for everything he has done by the left. he supports israel, as we always have (never saw anyone attack clinton for that, did you?). these photographs make israel look like they are committing great atrocities, thus connecting bush to a group of evil, who dares to bomb the poor hezbollah "freedom fighters".

8/7/2006 3:55:01 PM

except that the entire world press has the same position

8/7/2006 3:59:10 PM

TGD references a case of the liberal media doctoring a photo
Responses: OMG ONE BAD APPLE MEANS ALL LIBERALS ARE BAD
TGD references an additional case of the liberal media doctoring a photo
Responses: I THINK CONSERVATIVE MEDIA DOES THIS ALSO
TGD references yet another case of the liberal media doctoring a photo
Responses dwindle as liberals caravan to another thread where they can go back to their old hijinks

8/7/2006 4:07:13 PM

you forgot:

TreeTwista10: fags up thread again

8/7/2006 4:08:03 PM

Quote :

"I'm confused, were there doctored photos at Abu Graib?"

no, but there were "a few bad apples"

but gg with those awesome critical reading skills anyway

8/7/2006 4:11:57 PM

smcraff i cant do it alone...dont be modest...you should take plenty of credit for fucking up all these threads

8/7/2006 4:14:52 PM

These "bad apples" aren't in a position of power.

8/7/2006 4:18:29 PM

I think the comparison with Abu Graib is about misuse of trust/power, not the photos.

A few people doing something against the code of their rules doesn't necessarily mean a systemic corruption...unless its when you liberals talk about Abu Graib.

8/7/2006 4:20:06 PM

The systematic problem in the media isn't a liberal issue, its an issue of ethical standards being behind technology

8/7/2006 4:21:55 PM