Skip to comments.
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
Y-Net News ^
Posted on 08/06/2006 5:57:32 AM PDT by MatchGrade
A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs.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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2006israelwar; adnanhajj; antisemites; bullzogby; enemedia; exposed; fabrication; fakedphotos; fakephotos; fauxtography; goebbelswouldbeproud; islamoganda; israel; lebanon; lgf; medialies; mediawar; pajamahadeen; pajamapeoplerule; photoshop; powerghraib; propaganda; reuterrorism; reuters; reutersexposed; reutorrism; smoke; treason; waronerror; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: MatchGrade
This story was "broken" by FReepers yesterday.
2
posted on
08/06/2006 6:00:22 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
To: MatchGrade
3
posted on
08/06/2006 6:00:28 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
To: MatchGrade
The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.
Accused? It was obvious.
4
posted on
08/06/2006 6:01:17 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
To: BenLurkin
Actually, it ws broken by Little Green Footballs.
To: BenLurkin
Give credit where credit is due. Little Green Footballs broke the story first, although many experts here helped prove the fake.
6
posted on
08/06/2006 6:02:51 AM PDT
by
mware
(Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
To: MatchGrade
Fake, but accurate:
7
posted on
08/06/2006 6:03:07 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: MatchGrade
8
posted on
08/06/2006 6:06:33 AM PDT
by
Leisler
(Islam is the ROP. I know because the President told me so.)
To: Izzy Dunne
Ah, yes, a Dan Rather moment.
Sorry I missed that one earlier. Looking at the picture now, though, it seems to me that Beirut is portrayed as being the size of New York City ~
9
posted on
08/06/2006 6:06:51 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-/sarcasm)
To: since 1854; mware
10
posted on
08/06/2006 6:07:26 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
To: MatchGrade
The "main stream media" strikes again.I tell my kids to watch the news with a critical eye.By the way the glaciers will begin to melt tomorow.
To: MatchGrade
I honestly thought that this was a non story. I saw it late last night when I got home and didn't really check it out, but I see others picked up on it.
Great Work, to all involved in exposing this. The give away was when I spotted Waldo on a rooftop.
12
posted on
08/06/2006 6:08:48 AM PDT
by
BallyBill
(Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
To: BenLurkin
You have to hand it to Reuters' apology:
"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."
Translation:
"...photo-editing software was improperly used (we should've used the smudge tool, dang it!) on this image. A corrected version (a new photo that we've professionally altered this time) will immediately follow this advisory."
What a bunch of liars and idiots.
13
posted on
08/06/2006 6:09:27 AM PDT
by
Kieri
(A Grafted Branch (Rom. 11))
To: MatchGrade
The big question is: How many on the liberal blogs (DU, moveon, etc) are complaining about the fact that a doctored photo was put out as fact? I bet none on those blogs have complained at all.
14
posted on
08/06/2006 6:10:56 AM PDT
by
feedback doctor
(HATE - The core value of liberalsim)
To: cripplecreek
The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage. Accused? It was obvious.
=======
Good call! By saying that Reuters was "accused" of doctoring the photograph gives a vague witch-hunt feel to the charge. The correct word is, of course, "exposed".
15
posted on
08/06/2006 6:13:06 AM PDT
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: MatchGrade
Reuters admits to altering photo
I expect this so I am not at all impressed that they admited to it.
Hillary admits to over 100 of her lies!
Now THIS would be "shocking" news.
16
posted on
08/06/2006 6:15:27 AM PDT
by
ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)
To: Kieri
How about all the news orgs than ran the pic? Will they also run a correction?
17
posted on
08/06/2006 6:16:28 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
(Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
To: MatchGrade
Here are some questions that need to be put to Reuters.
1. What do they know and when did they know it?
2. What safeguards are in place to prevent the publishing of fraudulent photographs and news stories?
3. Will Israel receive an apology from Reuters?
4. What other photos/stories came from the same source and will they get re-reviewed?
5. After the 911 attacks, Reuters' editors decided to forbid the "terrorist" label on Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or any other terrorist group because you wanted to be viewed as impartial. Do you believe your reporting in Lebanon is considered impartial to Israelis?
6. Is it time to review the "terrorist" label decision?
To: Kieri
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 inconvenience." It is amazing that news organizations feel the need to alter an image like this. They purely have parallel goals to the murderers attacking Israel. Terrorists need news organizations to be effective.
19
posted on
08/06/2006 6:23:34 AM PDT
by
alrea
To: feedback doctor
No, the big question is: How many times have they done this and gotten away with it? Can anyone say? Why trust them at all?
They imperil themselves. Their biggest asset is their own credibility. Once they lose that, they're doomed. They should be vigorously apologizing and punishing all involved to save this credibility. Since they are not doing so, and only issue a lukewarm response, it says volumes, no?
Guess Reuters is in too deep. They have chosen a side.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
