Posted on 01/17/2006 6:54:45 AM PST by OPS4
N.Y. Times caught in photo fakery Pakistanis shown with 'missile' allegedly fired by U.S.
Posted: January 16, 2006 8:18 p.m. Eastern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com The New York Times is accused of running a staged photograph of beleaguered Pakistanis standing with a missile in the midst of their damaged home after a U.S. predator-drone attack aimed at al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The problem, say analysts, is the "missile" actually is an old, unexploded artillery shell, possibly with its fuse intact.
But on its website, the Times captioned the photo by Agence France-Presse this way: "Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border."
The photograph adds fuel to the anti-American protests by Islamic groups over the purported CIA airstrike Saturday, which Pakistan claims killed innocent civilians. Investigators are trying to determine if Zawahiri was among at least 17 people killed in the attack, which destroyed three houses in the Pashtun town of Damadola.
The Times corrected the photo caption after Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of The American Thinker brought attention to it.
The photo can be seen here, with a new caption saying, "A picture caption on Saturday with an article about a U.S. airstrike on a village in Pakistan misidentified an unexploded ordinance. It was not the remains of a missile fired at a house."
Lifson says the old artillery shell "must have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible readers of the New York Times."
Ned Barnett, an expert on military technology and frequent contributor to The History Channel, told Lifson that based on his extensive experience in researching military technology, "I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell – unfired – and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish."
Barnett said the Times' "claim that it was the remains of a rocket is nonsense. Rockets are frail, light-weight, flimsy things (for obvious reasons). Artillery shells are robust, mostly cast steel (the explosive weight is really rather small considering the overall weight of the shell), again for obvious reasons."
God BLess America! OPS4
Yeah, a lot less individual wear and tear.
We have killed so many that they have to outsource the living victims. ;^)
"It's a 155."
It has clearly been fired, as shown by the rifling marks on the obturator band. Those people may already be in Allah's hands if they mishandled that particular projo.
Journalist Libertines.
Unfortunately, the dud they were handling is too stable. Perhaps next time we'll get lucky and this round they intend to use - most likely - as an IED will kill them.
Even lawyers, which I know are not popular 'round these parts, would have a good belly-laugh at someone applying such a standard. The laws of evidence disagree with Ms. Mapes.
The fact the NYT changed the caption doesn't change the fact that the photo itself is still fake.
Thank you for catching that. It's a small point, but it illustrates the decline of the NYT. Newspapers used to have style books which among other things warned reporters and editors against just such blunders as "ordinance" for "ordnance". Do they still?
The scene of the rocket attack was in Pakistan, close to the Afghan border. It's not strange that somebody would look like an Afghan.
Media got caught faking crap repeatedly during operation Iraqi freedom.
The media kept rolling on as if they never got caught, and pretends everyone is stupid or forgetful.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/15/credulous-photojournalism-of-the-day/
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/27/video-remedial-ballistics-training-for-afp-photographers/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A2sAFHBptJE
Note at the end of the video linked above, the mine says sarcastically, “now go out and fake the news! (A bit better)”
The article he is responding to was discussed at length here on FR back then.
Stupid me forgot to bookmark it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.