Posted on 08/06/2006 4:35:24 AM PDT by Crazieman
Edited on 08/06/2006 5:09:15 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
PICTURE KILL FOR LBN20 TRANSMITTED AT APPROXIMATELY 1408GMT ON AUGUST 5, 2006. PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE WAS IMPROPERLY USED ON THIS IMAGE. A CORRECTED VERSION WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THIS ADVISORY. PLEASE REMOVE THE IMAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEMS. WE ARE SORRY FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. REUTERS LBN20 Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON) REUTERS NEWS PICTURES
See Also
Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat (to Little Green Footballs)
DUmmie FUnnies 08-07-08 ("Reuters admits altering Beirut photo")
The Go'uld infiltration is proceeding according to plan....
Thanks for the ping. I'm going to savor this thread.
I strongly disagree. It's not mere "incompetence" that the fakery shows a more dramatic amount of damage, over a wider area, than actually occurred.
The political point is perhaps not obvious when removed from the larger context of Hajj's fakery -- he's clearly trying to paint Israel as using excessive force. And the nice man is not alone in this: note, for example, today's backpeddling from claims of "40 killed" to "1 killed" in an Israeli attack.
I find it surprising that someone who paints himself as savvy to the ways and means of media manipulation should be unable to see this faked photo as part of a larger context.
|
NEW YORK Reuters admitted Sunday that it had published a doctored photograph of Beirut after an Israel strike on Saturday morning, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported. It said that it has fired Adnan Hajj, the Lebanese photographer who submitted the image.
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.
Reuters also said today it had put in place a 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, according to a Reuters spokeswoman.
“There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image," said Tom Szlukovenyi, Reuters Global Picture Editor, in a statement. "Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy."
He added that the fact that Hajj had altered two of his photographs meant none of his work for Reuters could be trusted either by the news service or its users.
It all started with just one contested image, brought to light by bloggers: In the original picture, thin smoke can be seen rising over Beirut after a recent Israeli air strike; in the published photograph, thick, black smoke billows. "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, on Sunday.
"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.
On Sunday, Reuters removed the retouched shot and replaced it with the original. The next day, it reported finding the other altered image.
Its Monday statement, after describing the flap over the first image, reads: "An immediate enquiry began into Hajj’s other work. It found on Monday that a second photograph, of an Israeli F-16 fighter over Nabatiyeh, southern Lebanon and dated Aug 2, had been doctored to increase the number of flares dropped by the plane from one to three."
Your read on the original and the doctored photo differs from mine. Where's the "more dramatic amount of damage?" All I see in the doctored photo is a darker smoke cloud.
He didn't just "darken" it -- he enlarged it as well, as LGF proved by showing the exact nature of the cloning.
We must also note that Mr. Hajj has at least one more "authentically doctored" picture, and that one also adds stuff that wasn't there in the first place. So this one picture is part of a larger pattern of lies by this fellow.
You're trying hard to push the "mere incompetence" explanation, but it doesn't hold water when we consider that this fellow was actively selling lies.
Powerful statement. They're beginning to feel the heat. They're sticking with the fake but accurate storyline on Qana. The blogoshere show hit the pic of all of the corralled photographers hard. I don't know how to make that happen.
How many bombed areas were depicted in the altered pic? How many were there really?
In my previous post to you, show= *should*.
I wondered if they just pulled his pics or if the did full recalls on the order of the first one, specfically identifying each of them.
I'm terrible at posting pics, but compare the child in this photo by hajj to the one in post 475. How many red headed curly haired kids are running around in Beirut, much less finding themselves before his cameras??
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060722/ids_photos_wl/r3023334187.jpg
The Guard documents were much better fakes than this.
It closed in 1998, after they completed the new one - it was one of those discover channel mega construction projects.
I can't post a pic to save my life here. Can someone post a side by side pic of the child in post 475 and the one from the link I just posted up there? TIA...
;-)
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.
