And another photo bites the dust, another retraction from Reuters, in addition, Reuters has now pulled all photos by the photographer Adnan Hajj.
Reuters admits to more image manipulation
News organization withdraws photograph of Israeli fighter jet, admits image was doctored, fires photographer. Reuters pledges 'tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict'
Yaakov LappinReuters has withdrawn a second photograph and admitted that the image was doctored, following the emergence of new suspicions against images provided by the news organization. On Sunday, Reuters admitted that one of its photographers, Adnan Hajj, used software to distort an image of smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut in order to create the effect of more smoke and damage.
The latest image to face doubts is a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter jet over the skies of Lebanon, seen in the image firing off "missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh," according to the image's accompanying text provided by Reuters.
Reuters has recalled all photos by Adnan Hajj
Rusty Shackleford, owner of the My Pet Jawa web log , noted that the warplane in the picture is actually firing defensive flares aimed at dealing with anti-aircraft missiles.
And this statement from Reuters sounds slightly more satisfying than the one issued yesterday:
“There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image", Reuters' statement quoted Tom Szlukovenyi, Reuters Global Picture Editor, as saying.
However, don't we constantly hear from the MSM how mainstream media is superior to bloggers because of their editors. The photographer might have doctored his own photos, but what about the editor who let the doctored photos through? Shouldn't they be disciplined as well. It is their job afterall.
Related:
Original photo debunking story here.
Update: Fox News video of the story is under "Latest News Headlines"
Michelle Malkin: All of Hajj's photos have been pulled by MargaReuterVille.
But Reuters is not a purely innocent victim of a rogue photographer. Hajj’s handiwork should have been discovered by any competent photo editor. Consider this: Power Line has published examples of two photos sent to the world’s media showing the same building in Beirut in ruins. One of the photos says it is evidence of an attack on July 24th, and the other photo says it is evidence of an Israeli attack on August 5th.
It should have been easy for any photo editor with two functioning eyeballs to detect the summer rerun of the photo. A very distinctive building with a multi-story geometric pattern on its wall stands adjacent to the wreckage and was clearly visible in both photos. There is no other word than “negligence” to describe this kind of editing. The only reasonable alternative is “complicity.”
Since the alleged indiscriminate and widespread bombing of Beirut is a cardinal propaganda theme of Hiz b’allah and its allies, repetitive use of the same photo as evidence of multiple attacks makes Reuters an ally of the terror group, fighting the information war on its behalf.
Experts in the field of public relations counsel getting on top of a problem when an organization is in a damage control situation. Staying ahead of your critics by quickly investigating and revealing the entire extent of the problem is the only way to go. Reuters has violated this well-accepted principle by refusing to admit that it has a serious problem with its photo editing.
An excellent post at the Democracy Project makes a few very salient points to remember (go read it all):
· What needs to be understood is that these are neither passing errors but rather part and parcel of Reuters’ longstanding and insistent bias against Israel.
· What needs to be understood is that this bias is a purposeful part of Reuters operating procedure and of its commercial strategy.
· What needs to be understood is that U.S. newspapers are a major source of Reuters’ revenue, and Reuters’ credibility is enhanced by being carried in U.S. newspapers.
· What needs to be understood, AND ACTED UPON, is that truth will not pressure Reuters to reform but only the complaints from these prime customers, the U.S. newspapers that pay for Reuters’ newswire.
And in the same Democracy Project article, he notes:
Roger Simon hits the nail on the head:
… it is worth noting that in order to justify this kind of behavior... hiring the heavily biased... to yourself, you have to pretend you are doing it for a "greater good." In this case that would not seem to be easy since Hezbollah is well known to be a religious fascist organization with sub-Medieval values rooted in misogyny, homophobia and the utter defeat of the Enlightenment. So how then do you find this "greater good" outside the financial viability of your institution? [Emphasis Added]
My question exactly. Why does the media support terrorists and help further terrorist activity? I just don't get it, especially with the American media. How is it that such a healthy segment of our society is so unhappy with their own country, the American way of life and politics, that they are willing to sell out their own country and values to those who would kill them instantly if given the chance? What makes them support a Cindy Sheehan who thinks the Iraqis were far better under Saddam Hussein than they are or will be with a democratic country? What makes them want to cozy up to the likes of Castro, or communits of any stripe? What went wrong in their lives to warp them so?
And I'm not the only one making this point (good post, read it all):
THE NEW YORK TIMES FINDS A NEW HERO: HASSAN NASRALLAH
Totalitarian killers in pursuit of a murderous utopian agenda can always count on the New York Times to transform them into noble representatives of the popular will. Whether Stalin or Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao, Fidel, Che or Arafat, the Times will humanize them. The archetype was cuddly Uncle Joe Stalin as seen through the eyes of Walter Duranty. Count on Duranty's successors to enlighten us about how personable these tyrants are, how charismatic, good to their pets and beloved by the people. Mass forced starvation, forced abortion, millions in gulags, genocide? Not part of "all the news that's fit to print". When atrocities like China's cultural revolution somehow do make it to the Times, they're accompanied by a barrage of articles explaining why such measures are really regrettably necessary. Furthermore, the Times helps us identify with the human struggles that burden these leaders. We learn of their personal kindness, their tragic family losses, their affability, their love of children and pets, but especially of how much they care for ordinary people, the kind of people the Times itself believes require help from their betters on its editorial Board.
Comments