Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reuters drops freelance Lebanese photographer over image
Reuters ^ | 06 Aug 2006 | Reuters

Posted on 08/06/2006 2:51:43 PM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-235 next last
To: humblegunner

That guy gets around!


51 posted on 08/06/2006 3:20:25 PM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
"This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards..."

Translation: Those damned pajamahadeen caught us again!

52 posted on 08/06/2006 3:21:38 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
'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," "

Eye roll. Baloney. If the lighting was so bad how could he even see that there were dust marks that needed removing. The light comes FROM the monitor. You don't need any light in the room at all to see the MONITOR. And you don't need room light to see the cut and paste function. It is not on the keyboard it is on the menu bar on the monitor.

53 posted on 08/06/2006 3:21:50 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood
Reuters "USED" to have standards but that way back in the day when Julius Reuters ran the company.

The real kicker is this anti Semitic propaganda outfit was started by a Jew.  Julius Reuters was born Jewish though converted to Christian later in life
54 posted on 08/06/2006 3:22:08 PM PDT by dennisw (Confucius say man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

And the uber-gullible editor who accepted the pictures? Will this kind of professional malpractice go on, with different photographers?


55 posted on 08/06/2006 3:22:38 PM PDT by thoughtomator (The worst thing about censorship is XXXXXXXXXXXXX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw



How many more of Mr. Hajj's photos will be doctored or staged?

How many already HAVE been? Esp. of injured civilians, etc.


56 posted on 08/06/2006 3:23:55 PM PDT by 4Liberty (privatize, don't subsidize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
Reuters and other news organisations reviewed those images and have all rejected allegations that the photographs were staged.

The photo's were not staged, just the events the photo's depicted.

57 posted on 08/06/2006 3:23:59 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
"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.

*ahem*

Want to buy a bridge?

58 posted on 08/06/2006 3:24:11 PM PDT by grimalkin (The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see. - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

So, where's Mothra?????


LOL


59 posted on 08/06/2006 3:25:20 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LibSnubber

Yep, Insult after injury.


60 posted on 08/06/2006 3:25:42 PM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless America and All who protect and preserve this Great Nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
"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.

Not nearly good enough. Where's the part about Reuters agreeing to "undertake a review of all of Hajj's previous contributions to Reuters." ?????

Reuters editors at every level need to be internally investigated now, as they did at the Slimes after the Blair fiasco.

61 posted on 08/06/2006 3:26:27 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (Or is it DUmmituders?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

And somebody please tell me how did that smoke get so dark compared to the original pic? Trying to remove dust. Puulllleeeese!


62 posted on 08/06/2006 3:27:21 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Glad I was just drinking water... makes for easier cleanup, LMAO!


63 posted on 08/06/2006 3:27:56 PM PDT by LibSnubber (Liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:



Verdict:


64 posted on 08/06/2006 3:28:13 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibSnubber
And what "dust marks" was stupid trying to get rid of? Dust marks off of digital pics or perhaps dust marks that were getting in the way of all the smoke he wanted seen in the pics?

There was dust in the memory stick. :-)

65 posted on 08/06/2006 3:28:29 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art , by McConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
Okay, they fired the photographer. But is Reuters only covering their tail from worst damage when the same photographer's managed photographs from Qana get taken apart?

John / Billybob
66 posted on 08/06/2006 3:30:21 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards

There are, or can be, technical/business process solutions to help in this situation, and the worldwide journalistic market is certainly wide enought to justify the effort. Just create a "Journalistic Integrity" version of Photoshop, which limits the manipulations that can be done on photographs in the field, plus logs the changes into the saved versions. Acceptable changes may be contrast, brightness, and maybe basic cropping. Every other manipulation would have to be the result of sending the image to an office at the newsroom, with a request of what to do, and it is done by someone other than the photographer, with the knowledge of the editor, again, with version control of what was done, along with what was requested.

67 posted on 08/06/2006 3:30:45 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
"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.

I know what he means. I hate it when the sun goes down and I can no longer see my monitor.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

68 posted on 08/06/2006 3:30:51 PM PDT by John Jorsett (scam never sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
And the uber-gullible editor who accepted the pictures? Will this kind of professional malpractice go on, with different photographers?

IMHO, the editors are uber-complicit more than uber-gullible.

69 posted on 08/06/2006 3:32:12 PM PDT by LibSnubber (Liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

I see no dust marks in Exhibit A.


70 posted on 08/06/2006 3:32:28 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

"Brilliant!"
71 posted on 08/06/2006 3:32:44 PM PDT by StAnDeliver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

Is that the real picture???? Man thats not even a convincing use of the Photoshop clone tool! Pathetic!


72 posted on 08/06/2006 3:34:43 PM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

Excellent news.


73 posted on 08/06/2006 3:35:46 PM PDT by Peach (Prayers for Israel and all who love her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

Score for the Pajamehedan!

Another one bites the dust


74 posted on 08/06/2006 3:36:06 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
I just HATE it when those dust particles get on my RAM card and smudge up the pictures. Photoshop takes care of it every time. Even in low light conditions.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

75 posted on 08/06/2006 3:36:36 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (Political troglodyte with a partisan axe to grind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Rather than making the "journalistic integrity" version of Photoshop be crippled, why not just have it tag the output with EXIF data that lists every alteration made? That, or maybe just a policy change in the news organization that requires originals be submitted along with any "improved" version.


76 posted on 08/06/2006 3:36:41 PM PDT by John Jorsett (scam never sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
Hajj you say?

Reminds me of a Photoshop I did a few years ago...


77 posted on 08/06/2006 3:38:23 PM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
Other sources report Harry Potter in the area...


78 posted on 08/06/2006 3:40:03 PM PDT by humblegunner (If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
The truth here is simple. Mr. Adnan Hajj is a de facto embedded Hezbollah propaganda agent posing as a freelance news photographer. His work provides valuable PR assistance to terrorists. Period. End of story.
79 posted on 08/06/2006 3:40:17 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Just the usual selective reporting.


80 posted on 08/06/2006 3:40:35 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
WTF??

Boy, this Hajj fella was busy staging plenty photographs. So he got there just in time to snap this picture of a 50% burned Koran, eh?


81 posted on 08/06/2006 3:42:03 PM PDT by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

82 posted on 08/06/2006 3:42:04 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

You are the best, ROTFLMAO.


83 posted on 08/06/2006 3:42:24 PM PDT by oxcart (Journalism [Sic])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

Reuters has strict standards of manipulation of images
They must be doctored in such a way that won't cause suspicion. "Don't get caught" says Reuters handbook covering spinning, doctoring and deceit.


84 posted on 08/06/2006 3:44:44 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

That photo isn't quite right either, Dallas. I clearly see two objects that should be natural but have obviously been touched up by human hands .... right by the letters "IDF".


85 posted on 08/06/2006 3:49:39 PM PDT by TheSpaceCoyote (Liberals are guilty of everything they accuse conservatives of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Glad to see Harry Potter on the job. Voldemort and his Death Eaters are on the march again.
86 posted on 08/06/2006 3:50:49 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
The most important thing is to log all changes, of course. It isn't required, but a crippled version would reduce the temptation to cheat, and it would let the photographer know exactly what the standards of the news organization are regarding manipulation, because the standards are the limitations of the software.

I also think it is a process issue, to split the photographer from the image manipulation as part of checks and balances, the way an editor position is supposed to work. News organizations should handle images the way banks handle money. Bank employees can't just grab handfulls of money out of the safe. There is a process that always will involve other prople and a paper trail. Here, the standards are the process. Circumventing the process violates the standards. Honest employees, which most are, use the process and are in no danger.

If information and trust is your business, you take it more seriously than Reuters is.

87 posted on 08/06/2006 3:51:51 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TheSpaceCoyote
That's just a conspiracy theory...;-)
88 posted on 08/06/2006 3:52:08 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
Reuters has strict standards of accuracy that bar the manipulation of images in ways that mislead the viewer.

Oh dear; I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair! The thought of Reuters having any "strict standards of accuracy" is truly laughable!

89 posted on 08/06/2006 3:57:16 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
humblegunner Good photo, I'm sure we can use it. We just removed a few dust specks using Photoshop to enhance the effect of the rescue effort against the monstrous Zionists. Reuters Bureau Chief
90 posted on 08/06/2006 3:59:32 PM PDT by Da Mav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: right-wingin_It

Good catch!! That has to be one of the most obviously staged photos yet..... no way a photographer shows up just at the instant a Koran is so conveniently 1/2 burned. A few seconds later and it would all be gone..... a few seconds earlier and he would have been able to rescue the precious Koran. Oh, yes, maybe it is just the serendipity of being a great wartime photographer that allows for an image like that one.


91 posted on 08/06/2006 4:00:55 PM PDT by Enchante (Democrats do want to see victory in the War on Terror.......just not for our side........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

thanks- I threw them all an email

I don't expect to hear back from them.....

;-)


92 posted on 08/06/2006 4:02:55 PM PDT by eeevil conservative (JOHN BOLTON FOR PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Lots of examples here:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/


93 posted on 08/06/2006 4:03:32 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
If you know anything about photography it is a digital photo. Film photo reproduction might be subject to bad indexing during multiple print exposures, but digital has no such limitation.

BS Through and through. Reuters knows better and is just using it as an excuse. This is similar to the superscript argument on the Rathergate memos, yes it is posiblesomeone could have done it, bit it would take Herculean effort to make hose kinds of errors.
94 posted on 08/06/2006 4:03:43 PM PDT by Woodman ("One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives." PW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

Reuters is just miffed that they got caught.

Chalk up another one for the blogosphere. The REAL media of the 21st century...and beyond.


95 posted on 08/06/2006 4:06:18 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (I am a proud friend of Israel. We're all Jews now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia

The suspicion of doctoring these photos was posted yesterday
on FR. I beleive it was Little green footballs but regardless
the Freeper poster was ahead of everyone else!


96 posted on 08/06/2006 4:06:28 PM PDT by ChiMark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Al-Reuters -- The DUmmies Guide to Making a Small Fortune Out of a Big Fortune.
Another (Last Century Dinosaur) One Bites The Dust


97 posted on 08/06/2006 4:07:38 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (Reuters end-game pic for posteriority...unfortunately for Al-Reuters, this puppy ain't Photoshopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia; martin_fierro

Someone needs to photoshop a litle "Will ululate for cash" sign to hang around her neck...either that or put a Heineken in each hand!


98 posted on 08/06/2006 4:08:02 PM PDT by Dutchgirl (Don't mess with Knesset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Reuters is standing by the Qana photos by using the reaction to this photo as proof that they are honest.

A variation of the "limited hangout" technique.

99 posted on 08/06/2006 4:09:23 PM PDT by Prince Caspian (Don't ask if it's risky... Ask if the reward is worth the risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibSnubber

"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."

"Yeahhhh.....that's the ticket!


100 posted on 08/06/2006 4:10:11 PM PDT by Carl LaFong ("I shot that fat barkeep!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-235 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson