Farking the news, once again!

[OklahomaTuba]

Go Reuters!
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/856456/LBN20_wa(1).jpg


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

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

[StoopTroup]

Wag the dawg?

[OklahomaTuba]

Fark the dawg!

They suck at this stuff as well. Maybe they should start a thread on the fark forum and let us do their work for them.

[OklahomaTuba]

This was discovered by the same people who caught Dan Rather and his "fake but accurate" memos on Bush...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only

[SicEmBaylor]

Reuters is also the agency that won't call terrorists, "terrorists."

[OklahomaTuba]

You'll like this, Al-Reuters explanation...


LONDON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Reuters, the global news and information agency, told a freelance Lebanese photographer on Sunday it would not use any more of his pictures after he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut. ...

Reuters withdrew the doctored image on Sunday and replaced it with the unaltered photograph after several news blogs said it had been manipulated using Photoshop software to show more smoke. Reuters has strict standards of accuracy that bar the manipulation of images in ways that mislead the viewer.

“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.

“This represents a serious breach of Reuters’ standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him,” Whittle said in a statement issued in London. Hajj worked for Reuters as a non-staff freelance, or contributing photographer, from 1993 until 2003 and again since April 2005.http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06301298.htm

This is really funny.

I guess they think we are really ****ing stupid.

[OklahomaTuba]

Looks like the farking fun continues for Al-reuters...


On Monday, it added further charges, saying he had manipulated at least one other photo -- and that all of his recent pictures had been deleted from the news agency's data base.http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950988

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/jettrails.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/flarefake.jpg

[Hatfield]

so you are you mad at the photographer or reuters? Seems to me they found someone playing loose with the facts and doctoring photos to make it appear more "newsworthy" and they canned him and removed all of his pictures which is the right thing to do.

[GrapevineSooner]

Actually, Jeff Harrell at The Shape of Days deserves a ton of credit as well (http://theshapeofdays.com/2006/08/another_faked_photo_by_adnan_hajj.html).

And it's not so much the image manipulation that annoys me about this situation. It's the insinuation that the Israeli jet fired missiles when the photo shows the jet is firing flares as a defensive measure.

I guess Hajj didn't possess the ability to photoshop those flares into missiles.

[GrapevineSooner]

so you are you mad at the photographer or reuters? Seems to me they found someone playing loose with the facts and doctoring photos to make it appear more "newsworthy" and they canned him.

I'm mad at both.

First, for Hajj for manipulating the photos and the caption in the first place. And at al-Reuters for either intentionally or unintentionally allowing this to slip through it's editorial layers and onto it's newswire.

[Hatfield]

fair enough.

[BeetDigger]

First, for Hajj for manipulating the photos and the caption in the first place. And at al-Reuters for either intentionally or unintentionally allowing this to slip through it's editorial layers and onto it's newswire.


Perhaps the more disturbing issue is that they took action after it was pointed out to them. If no one had noticed, I wonder if they would have taken action?

[Hatfield]

Perhaps the more disturbing issue is that they took action after it was pointed out to them. If no one had noticed, I wonder if they would have taken action?

that assumes they knew the pics were doctored.

I am not saying they did or didn't know just pointing out the assumption in your argument

[BeetDigger]

that assumes they knew the pics were doctored.

I am not saying they did or didn't know just pointing out the assumption in your argument

True statement. However, it is documented that the media does this for "impact". The Time photo of OJ is a prime example of that. They doctored it on purpose and weren't going to say anything until someone called them on it. They then admitted they doctored it. I am not naive enough to think that the OJ photo was the first time someone did this and that this Reuters photo is the only other time a doctored photo has slipped through, intentionally or unintentionally, the cracks.

Of course, the media has always selectively used quotes, depending upon the slant that they are going for. I guess photos shouldn't be any different.

[SCOUT]

that assumes they knew the pics were doctored.

I am not saying they did or didn't know just pointing out the assumption in your argument

It isn't much of an assumption. Have you seen the doctored photo? It looks like one of my farks.

I believe they knew about it and let it go to help sell the story. If they didn't know about it, then their review process is woefully inadequate.

[OklahomaTuba]

so you are you mad at the photographer or reuters? Seems to me they found someone playing loose with the facts and doctoring photos to make it appear more "newsworthy" and they canned him and removed all of his pictures which is the right thing to do.
Both.

But really, how the hell does someone see the picture of the smoke and NOT see that it was manipulated by a cloning tool in photoshop?

The job is so badly done, its rather pathetic, much like the forged documents that SeeBS used on Bush trying to sway the election.

Al-reuters is nothing more than a propaganga arm of Islam these days anyway. This is just the latest example.

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh yeah...
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/857990/LBN12_wa.jpg

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

[OklahomaTuba]

Now this is good...

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

[BeetDigger]

Today, I guess Will Rogers would be very misguided in what he knows.

[Widescreen]

Now this is good...

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

Lights, Camera, Ululate!