# Altered War- The Fall-out From The "Doctered" Photos Begins



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Aug 2006)

Reproduced under the fair dealings act.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2006/08/08/1724171-sun.html

Tue, August 8, 2006
   Altered war
Manipulated photos highlight untruths in Mideast conflict

By LICIA CORBELLA, EDITOR
  
They say the first casualty of war is Truth. Yesterday, the respected news agency Reuters issued an unprecedented announcement. Essentially, it admitted it unwittingly published propaganda as straight news. 
In a released statement, the wire agency announced the withdrawal of all 920 photographs by freelance Lebanese photographer, Adnan Hajj from its database "after an urgent review of his work showed he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hezbollah," said the statement. 

Wishful thinking on Reuters' part. 
The breaches go far deeper than just two photos. 

The "urgent review" was initiated after numerous examples of staged "rescue" photos were shown on numerous blogs on the Internet including: http://powerlinblog.com/archives/014919.php and http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html and http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184206.php 

Global picture editor Tom Szlukovenyi said: "There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image." 
Hajj has worked for Reuters from 1993 to 2003 and then again since April 2005. 

One has to wonder what other propaganda has been disseminated as straight news by Hajj. 
The statement continues: "Reuters ended its relationship with Hajj on Sunday after it found that a photograph he had taken of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on suburban Beirut had been manipulated using Photoshop software to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings. 
"An immediate enquiry began into Hajj's other work," continued the Reuters statement. 

It established yesterday that a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter over Nabatiyeh, southern Lebanon and dated Aug. 2, had also been doctored to increase the number of flares dropped by the plane from one to three. 
"Manipulating photographs in this way is entirely unacceptable and contrary to all the principles consistently held by Reuters throughout its long and distinguished history. It undermines not only our reputation but also the good name of all our photographers," Szlukovenyi said. 
But altering photos wasn't Hajj's only specialty. As http://powerlinblog.com/archives/014919.php shows. 

On July 24 at 2:37 PM ET a Hajj photo shows a destroyed southern Beirut neighbourhood with a very distinctive building with a geometric design on the building. 
On August 5 -- 12 days following that photo, Hajj sent out a photo of the exact same neighbourhood and the following cutline accompanied the photo: "A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)". 

So, the world believes Israel is flattening entire neighbourhoods constantly when in fact the same neighbourhood is repeatedly shown. Thank heavens for bloggers. 
More interestingly, however, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html exposes that these war photographers from various agencies are having the same "news" photo staged for them. 
In this blog, the same child is seen being carried by three different men in their rush to get the obviously dead child to an ambulance. The photos were clearly staged for each different photographer over several hours. 

Did the photographers know this? It's hard to know. 
Yesterday, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora initially said 40 people were killed in an Israeli air strike in Marjayoun. Oops. Slight exaggeration. Actually five people were killed. 

And remember the news from Qana, where apparently 54 members of two families were killed July 30 by Israeli bombs according to Lebanese officials? Remember how they said mostly children died? 
Human Rights Watch put the toll at 28 killed and 13 missing. Wanna bet the missing 13 were evacuated to Canada? From 40 to five, 54 to 28. The Lebanese government claims more than 500 Lebanese have died since this war began -- a war the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah started. 

So, what's the Truth? It's definitely less and likely a lot less. 

Needless to say, it's sad that any innocent people had to die thanks to the lunacy of Hezbollah. It's particularly sad that Truth is killed again and again and Canadians embrace the lies of terrorist groups rather than the Truth of our ally.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2006)

Utterly disgusting... 

But you know that articles denouncing manipulated photos or propoganda, will just be called counter-propaganda by some


----------



## GO!!! (8 Aug 2006)

Now that's fanatical devotion to a cause - carrying around a dead child for hours in the ME in July-just so the reporters all get a shot.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Aug 2006)

It would be nice if they could task a remote sentry device (JSTAR?) to monitor sites after they have been hit.  Then you would see how these clowns conduct the circus afterwards.  Reminds me of footage from a few years ago where Palestine was trooping around a boy who had been "murdered" by the IDF for throwing stones or some such crap.  There was a massive crowd all worked into a lather, and they had this guy wrapped in a shroud and were carrying him over their heads on a stretcher.  Well, seems everyone didn't know the steps to the "Jihad Jitter" (much the same as the obligatory drunk fat chick who tries to keep up with the Hustle when they play "My Eyes Don't Cry" at the local watering hole, but I digress) and they go into a speed wobble.  The stretcher gets dropped, and you can clearly see the clown get up and run into the crowd.  
And you know bloody well that someone in the crowd said "Allah has delivered us a miracle!!"


----------



## 2 Cdo (8 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It would be nice if they could task a remote sentry device (JSTAR?) to monitor sites after they have been hit.  Then you would see how these clowns conduct the circus afterwards.  Reminds me of footage from a few years ago where Palestine was trooping around a boy who had been "murdered" by the IDF for throwing stones or some such crap.  There was a massive crowd all worked into a lather, and they had this guy wrapped in a shroud and were carrying him over their heads on a stretcher.  Well, seems everyone didn't know the steps to the "Jihad Jitter" (much the same as the obligatory drunk fat chick who tries to keep up with the Hustle when they play "My Eyes Don't Cry" at the local watering hole, but I digress) and they go into a speed wobble.  The stretcher gets dropped, and you can clearly see the clown get up and run into the crowd.
> And you know bloody well that someone in the crowd said "Allah has delivered us a miracle!!"



Now that's funny! ;D


----------



## rmacqueen (8 Aug 2006)

I remember reading a story where Hezbollah would line up ambulances well away from foreign journalists and then send them screaming by with lights flashing and siren wailing even just for effect.  They were actually going nowhere.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2006)

Anderson Cooper reported just that weeks ago.


----------



## Blakey (8 Aug 2006)

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2854


----------



## Bo (8 Aug 2006)

An interesting perspective on the matter, and it puts such fabrications in a different light :



> Exploiting the Reuters incident
> 
> It is indisputably wrong for a media outlet to alter photographs or other information so as to falsely represent what is being reported. That is beyond dispute. Yet for three straight days now (and still going strong), the right-wing blogosphere has been wallowing in a self-celebratory swarm because two photographs taken in Lebanon and published by Reuters were found to have been altered using Photoshop by the freelance photographer who submitted them. Rush Limbaugh has now joined the party, decreeing that "Reuters ought to be investigated." (The frequency with which Bush supporters call for media organizations to be investigated because of what they report is itself notable.)
> 
> ...



I agree with what Glenn noted in his opening remarks about these photos - there is no excuse for them. But the supposed "hysteria" by the Wingers about this incident really isn't anything new, and it fits their larger war on the mainstream media in of itself. Of course when you shine the same light on them for similar deceits like those mentioned above, they run for cover. 

Just a little something to munch on.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2006)

Taking into account of Hezbollah's media manipulation is it any wonder some may question the rest of what's being reported.  It doesn't help when some in the media (which is suppossed to be unbiased) knowingly and purposfully change the flavour of the story.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Aug 2006)

The weakest defense in history.......what news agency used those photos as real?

...and lets be truthful.....of course the news agency's support any kind of war or terrorism, there is big bucks to be made in bringing us even more human suffering than the other guys.
Kinda like the munition makers who are probably making slurping noises like the weasel on Bugs Bunny with the news that somewhere another flare-up is happening.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Aug 2006)

Many photos taken in or near combat situations are posed.  Some of the best-known photos from various theatres of war were posed.  It's less clear whether alteration was a customary practice before the age of digitization.

The interesting perspective is that this is just one more incident to add to a long list.  I stopped believing anything shown in pictures from the region long ago.   Too much bullshit, too little fact and context.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> An interesting perspective on the matter, and it puts such fabrications in a different light


no, it does not. You should move a little closer. Reaching that far, you'll pull something.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Aug 2006)

So the "perspective" is that all media and their supporters are wrong, biased and use false information and images, so they should all be excused?

No one is wrong because we all are?

That's pretty weak. Reuters screwed up, probably have been for a long time, and are paying the price of crappy fact and image checking.


----------



## Klc (9 Aug 2006)

The part that gets me... Reuters hasn't apologised. They have not even admitted they made a mistake, stating that the photographer had broken their policies...
Shouldn't there be some sort of editor looking for this kind of thing? Blatantly photoshopped photos, especially from a local.

And his convenient picture of the missile strike on the Israeli ship. Either he is the luckiest photographer in the world, or knew where to be and when. Somehow he doesn't seem like an impartial journalist...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Aug 2006)

Impartial journalists are as rare as an albino rhino.


----------



## squealiox (9 Aug 2006)

Yup, reuters sure dropped the ball on this one (and yes, they HAVE apologised). but as probably the only person here who actually worked at reuters once upon a time, i gotta laugh at this whole idea that the company has some sort of ideological bias. their editors have a wide variety of opinions and backgrounds, and their only "hidden agenda" seems to be staying ahead of AP (in general news) and bloomberg (in finance). as we have just seen, they're also pretty transparent -- and fast -- when it comes to acknowledging and correcting errors.

it's obvious that the photographer in this case was trying to add visual impact to the shot. but if you compare the original with the tampered photo, they both seem to depict the same amount of damage (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47186/post-423567.html#msg423567). this is most likely a case of professional fraud, for which he has been rightfully shown the door, rather than propaganda. like i said before, it's a cutthroat industry, and reuters has never been shy about trimming its payroll.

when all is said and done, reuters still has a far better track record than, say, the national post, the new york times or the daily telegraph, for example.


----------



## Klc (9 Aug 2006)

Reproduced under the fair dealings act.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-08-07T143833Z_01_N07348592_RTRIDST_0_MIDEAST-REUTERS.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna


> Reuters withdraws all photos by Lebanese freelance
> Mon Aug 7, 2006 10:38am ET145
> LONDON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Reuters withdrew all 920 photographs by a freelance Lebanese photographer from its database on Monday after an urgent review of his work showed he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hizbollah.
> 
> ...



More retraction than apoligy, IMHO.


----------



## m410 (9 Aug 2006)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> it's obvious that the photographer in this case was trying to add visual impact to the shot. but if you compare the original with the tampered photo, they both seem to depict the same amount of damage


I disagree.  The original photo looks to me like there is only one damaged building, billowing a lot of smoke.  Anyway, there is a host of recent questionable and outright deceiptful photojournalism uncovered here.


----------



## Blakey (9 Aug 2006)

:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-busted-in-hezbollah.html
...and the NY Times eventual correction... :
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html


----------



## squealiox (9 Aug 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> :
> http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-busted-in-hezbollah.html
> ...and the NY Times eventual correction... :
> http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html


so i guess that means all these other corrections on that NYT page must also be proof of an MSM conspiracy, then? :


> ...•
> Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about sniper shootings on Indiana roads misstated the location of a fatal attack last month. It was near Seymour, southeast of Indianapolis, not near Muncie, northeast of Indianapolis. (Go to Article)
> •
> An article on Saturday about Eric N. Olsen, a substitute teacher accused of molesting in Southern California, referred incorrectly to the jurisdiction of a police spokeswoman, Diane Galindo, who said Mr. Olsen admitted molesting girls over the past three years. The jurisdiction, Ontario, is a city, not a county. (Go to Article)
> ...


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> so i guess that means all these other corrections on that NYT page must also be proof of an MSM conspiracy, then?


no, merely incompetence. Nothing out of the ordinary there.


----------



## Blakey (9 Aug 2006)

> so i guess that means all these other corrections on that NYT page must also be proof of an MSM conspiracy, then?



Not at all, just the fact that you _can't see the forest for the trees_.... :


----------



## calgarytanks (9 Aug 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Many photos taken in or near combat situations are posed.  Some of the best-known photos from various theatres of war were posed.  It's less clear whether alteration was a customary practice before the age of digitization.
> 
> The interesting perspective is that this is just one more incident to add to a long list.  I stopped believing anything shown in pictures from the region long ago.   Too much bullshit, too little fact and context.



photos of vimy ridge are well known to have had airbursts airbrushed into the sky by lord beaverbrook's "image techs" in 1917.  a famous photo of Aubrey Cosins, VC, has had a beret airbrushed onto his head for publication in the Qor history...(he had been a Highlander of some stripe when an official army portrait had been taken and he never got another picture taken after transfer to the qor, with whom he was killed in 1945).  So even in Cdn mil history, there is examples of image manipulation dating back to WWI.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Aug 2006)

Did those photo's influence public opinion??  Plus with whole sell carpet bombing of cities I doubt the public who got the photo's in record time really cared.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Did those photo's influence public opinion??  Plus with whole sell carpet bombing of cities I doubt the public who got the photo's in record time really cared.


Please, all of these photos serve only one purpose, to inflame "world" opinion/hostility towards the state of Israel (read _moderate Lebanese/Hezz supporters_). 

If anyone here thinks this isn't true of what the _pro-Hezbollah_ "photojournalists" are attempting to do then, I challenge you to produce the dame sort of photo's, with the same ulterior motive and post them or provide a link.

It's pretty amazing though, how all of these were found in such a convenient spot (perfect for composition of the shot), nice and clean! 
http://www.slublog.com/archives/2006/08/the_passion_of.html
*"Today Wall-Mart shoppers, we have a sale in our children's department, stuffed toys have been "rolled back" by %50!, and if you buy 1 you get one for free!"*  :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Aug 2006)

Dude I was speaking about the World War photo's being not very relevant.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

oops


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Taking into account of Hezbollah's media manipulation is it any wonder some may question the rest of what's being reported.  It doesn't help when some in the media (which is suppossed to be unbiased) knowingly and purposfully change the flavour of the story.



How true!

I found those 'posed' pics with those dead children quite sickening and distressing to say the least, and although sadly these people were killed, to use their death in such a twisted way, the way Hezbollah has, simply for me, I see a new high in low by this orgainsation of terrorists. The extremes they are going to, just re-inforces the fact they must be 'put down' like a rabid animal.

Wes


----------



## rifleman (10 Aug 2006)

Man, I think the tinfoil hats are on with this latest conspiracy. Are we supposed to only trust information that supports our view? Search the world over and you'll eventually find a website or Blog that will support any issue. Propaganda is used by each side remember "In war the first casualty is the truth."


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Aug 2006)

So, what exactly are you saying Rfn?

One does not need a tinfoil hat to see those pics with the same bloke in them at different times wit the same corpses.



Wes


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Man, I think the tinfoil hats are on with this latest conspiracy. Are we supposed to only trust information that supports our view? Search the world over and you'll eventually find a website or Blog that will support any issue. Propaganda is used by each side remember "In war the first casualty is the truth."


Spare me the idioms, start posting the links of these that whom support the Israeli cause and use the MSM to further the agenda.


----------



## m410 (10 Aug 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Man, I think the tinfoil hats are on with this latest conspiracy. Are we supposed to only trust information that supports our view? Search the world over and you'll eventually find a website or Blog that will support any issue. Propaganda is used by each side remember "In war the first casualty is the truth."


Evidence can be used to prove anything even remotely true!

*edit* fixed link


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

^^ The page cannot be displayed


----------



## rmacqueen (10 Aug 2006)

You can be pretty sure that both sides are engaging in a propaganda campaign to gain world support.  All such reports should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now there are reports from Israel of Iranian Republican Guards being amongst the Hezbollah dead and, again, there are questions about the veracity of the "documents" found to support that.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> You can be pretty sure that both sides are engaging in a propaganda campaign to gain world support.  All such reports should be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Now there are reports from Israel of Iranian Republican Guards being amongst the Hezbollah dead and, again, there are questions about the veracity of the "documents" found to support that.


Ok, what do people not understand about posting links of information that at least can substatiate claims.
*Post a link*

Not one person so far has posted any sort of *Israeli propaganda plot using the MSM as a vehicle*.


Link to the Republican Guard story, not much in the way of "propaganda"....if you ask me.  :
Edited to ass link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b5e7bed2-1bb9-41d1-86ef-b80b294c50fe&k=12677


----------



## rifleman (10 Aug 2006)

Wesley "Over There" (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> So, what exactly are you saying Rfn?
> 
> One does not need a tinfoil hat to see those pics with the same bloke in them at different times wit the same corpses.
> 
> ...



But how do we know that there were different times? Maybe its a plot by the Media to discredit the other medias and gain a story.


----------



## rifleman (10 Aug 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> Spare me the idioms, start posting the links of these that whom support the Israeli cause and use the MSM to further the agenda.



Maybe not support of Isreal but heres one

We need to attack Iraq cause they have "weapons of mass destruction".....


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Maybe not support of Isreal but heres one
> 
> We need to attack Iraq cause they have "weapons of mass destruction".....


 : Ok, spell it with me now I S R A E L...


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

rifleman,

the reports of the Palestinians in Palestine and Lebanon using staged scenes for propaganda go back decades, as well as their using Ambulances as troop carriers, etc, amongst the military/intelligence communities. I can recall the stories told over the kitchen table by family and friends about first-hand examples witnessed.

It's only now being brought to the main-stream consciousness. It's nothing new. It's not part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.


----------



## jeremyoneil (10 Aug 2006)

while it is true that many of the most famous war photos were posed, such as U.S. Marines raising the flag on mount Suribachi, they were generally done to re-enact an image that was either too dangerous or brief for the photographer to capture. at least these posed photos were meant to portray events that really did happen. multiple people pretending to "rescue" a dead child for a photo op to advance their "cause" is reprehensible at best. these are the same people who rant and rave about us not respecting their religious beliefs while blatantly disregarding their laws for handling the dead. makes you wonder.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Aug 2006)

jeremyoneil said:
			
		

> while it is true that many of the most famous war photos were posed, such as U.S. Marines raising the flag on mount Suribachi, they were generally done to re-enact an image that was either too dangerous or brief for the photographer to capture. at least these posed photos were meant to portray events that really did happen. multiple people pretending to "rescue" a dead child for a photo op to advance their "cause" is reprehensible at best. these are the same people who rant and rave about us not respecting their religious beliefs while blatantly disregarding their laws for handling the dead. makes you wonder.



The first photo by the USMC was not staged, but later on others were taken.

Wes


----------



## jeremyoneil (10 Aug 2006)

right, same guys different angles.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

jeremyoneil said:
			
		

> right, same guys different angles.


What choo talkin 'bout Willis? Same guys different angle?
First Photo:







> The most famous flag raising took place on Feruary 23, 1945 on Mount Suribachi by U.S. Marines and a Navy Corpsman!


http://expage.com/gunnyg2
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/AhoyMarines.html
Staged photo


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Aug 2006)

jeremyoneil if there is anything I have learned psot 9/11 its that EVERYONE can be a hypocrite regradless of your beliefs.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

And just a little humor to lighten things up a bit.

*You're On Notice!*





Make your own > http://www.shipbrook.com/onnotice/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Aug 2006)

That's pretty cool and as such will let it slide that my name is in there.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Edited to add: I think I just found the Israel version of "propaganda"... :
http://www.aish.com/movies/Lebanon.asp


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Aug 2006)

As for the original pic taken by the USMC, the flag was smaller, and the bullets were still flying. Currently I do not have the resources to find a link for this, but both the staged and real pics are noted in several books, including the ones I have back in safe ole Australia.

Cheers,

Wes

PS - if anyone can find a link, please post.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2006)

Mount Suribachi Flag Raising:

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingb.htm

Link with many photos of the original flag raising and the 2nd flag raising. I think the difference is that the posed photograph of this flag raising was never passed off as original and has always been widely known to be a 2nd flag raising/recreation of the event. Despite that, it is the most copied picture in photography.

Link to the Bios of the Flag-Raisers in the re-creation (2nd flag raising) which explains the real reason behind raising the 2nd flag - replacement with a larger one.

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingc.htm


----------



## tonykeene (11 Aug 2006)

This is a very interesting topic for me, because I have worked for years as a photojournalist and reporter.  To some extent, all pictures reproduced in newspapers and magazines have been touched up, or manipulated in some way.  The main rule seems to be: Has the picture been altered so that now it shows something that was not there?

Here's an example:  At The Barrie Examiner, a long time ago, a young reporter was sent out to get a picture of the new executive of a community group.  The people were all lined up against a wall, but when the shot was developed the editor saw that one guy was standing some distance from the group.  There was a big open space of wall there.
The darkroom guy cropped the pic to move the errant member closer to the main body, and that's how the picture ran.  Newspapers have a hatred of waste space, just as radio stations deplore dead air time.

Recently I did the same thing with a parade shot, cutting out a lot of dead space to make the troops fit into the frame.  It does not alter the story, because the soldiers were in fact on parade.  They just weren't quite that close together.  It enabled me to show the entire frontage of the unit, so that everyone was visible. (For a set up picture you can ask the people to move closer together.  On parade this is not possible)

Other pictures are brightened, sharpened or increased in contrast.  Almost all of them are cropped, to "tighten" the image and focus the readers' attention.  The newspaper with the best pictures wins, it's that simple.

I saw the Hajj pictures, before and after, and there does not appear to be that much difference between them.  However, if they were altered with the intent to make the pictures look more dramatic, or to make the bomb damage look worse, then 
the ethical line has been crossed.

The power which computers now give us to create images out of nothing is awesome and amazing.  But it is also dangerous.

Reuters did the right thing.  For sure.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2006)

tonykeene said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Recently I did the same thing with a parade shot, cutting out a lot of dead space to make the troops fit into the frame.  It does not alter the story, because the soldiers were in fact on parade.  They just weren't quite that close together ...



I'm really glad you didn't do that to my parade lo these several decades back.  I would have hated the fuss and bother involved in rescuing my sergeant major from the clutches of higher authority after he cold-cocked a silly public relations officer.


----------



## tonykeene (11 Aug 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm really glad you didn't do that to my parade lo these several decades back.  I would have hated the fuss and bother involved in rescuing my sergeant major from the clutches of higher authority after he cold-cocked a silly public relations officer.



I've had to dodge the odd pace stick in my time!!

The nice thing was that the unit thought the picture was so good they ordered copies.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2006)

Don't get all wrapped up thinking only about the flag-raising.  Many other pictures purportedly of "battle" are not.  The point is this: any photograph could be staged or altered and one should therefore not read anything into it.  As evidence of anything, a picture is dubious.  If you allow your opinions and emotions to be guided by what people want to show you, your conclusions are at best indeterminate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2006)

The famous picture of a soldier getting shot from the Spanish civil war was charged to be a fake, but it seems now to be proven correct.

http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/msj/courage.summer2000/y07.html


----------



## GO!!! (11 Aug 2006)

I think the main problem here is assuming that the press is anything but a business.

The media, reporters, photographers, editors et al. are not champions of free speech, purveyors of factual information or in the pursuance of any other "higher calling".

They are participants in a business, and that business is selling the most advertising space and newspapers/cable subscriptions possible, nothing more. Just like manufacturing companies that endeavour to sell products that sit perfectly at the intersection of cost and quality for the highest profit possible, the media will sell you whatever you will pay for.

We, as a society, pay for war reporting, so the media outlets can sell more advertising. When writers sensationalise, reporters misquote, photographers alter, and editors package and guide the whole thing, they are just creating a saleable product. Occasionally, one of them gets caught, and then they wax poetic about "journalistic integrity" and other such oxymorons, as they engage in a superficial "cleaning".

I view the media in much the same way as politicians. I _expect_ them to lie, philander and steal, in their areas of expertise, so it is hardly shocking to me when they do.

Viewing all members of the press as desperate peddlers is helpful in placing their reporting in context.


----------



## jeremyoneil (11 Aug 2006)

I had not seen that photo of the flag raising, thanks for the clarification. I think that the problem with the majority of real combat photos is that they just aren't exiting enough to sell papers or fulfill the public's notions of what war is. If photogs were taking exiting pictures of firefights and bombings we would also be seeing a lot memorial articles about them getting killed in the process. The media has changed their focus from unbiased reporting of the news to entertainment and political commentary. In the past the majority of staged or altered photos were presented as such, and were usually designed to illustrate events that happened. Now we are seeing "journalistic" photography that is more of a visual editorial or outright propaganda. In a business where freelance photographers (who may or may not have an agenda) are selling photos based on their visual impact rather than their representation of the truth, we must expect that some people are going to conduct themselves dishonestly.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2006)

From "Little Green Footballs

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22055_LGF_Exclusive-_How_Much_Does_It_Cost_to_Buy_Global_TV_News&only



> *LGF Exclusive: How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News? *
> An LGF reader who worked for Associated Press TV News sent me the following article explaining how APTN works, and suggesting a reason why their coverage of the Middle East is so overwhelmingly biased against Israel:
> 
> How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?
> ...


----------



## rmacqueen (12 Aug 2006)

This video from LGF is also interesting.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22061_Pallywood&only


----------



## Gunnar (15 Aug 2006)

and this one as well:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/209315/photo_fraud_changes_war_perceptions/


----------



## time expired (17 Aug 2006)

I dont really think you should condemn jounalists after all they are just doing what jounalists do,like
sharks or lawyers do what they do.This kind of jounalism is what the public want,cheap emotionalism
that is what the vast majority want to read or see,and the media is more than willing to supply it.
The real tradegy is because of our desire to see dead woman and children on our TV screens and our 
wish to demonstrate our revultion as a measure of our humanity puts more women and children at
risk because the terrorists are more than willing to put them in harms way and use our humanity as a 
weapon against us.In this the media are their best allies.This is nothing new I think it really got started in
Vietnam and continues unabatted.
                                Regards


----------



## Dirt Digger (18 Aug 2006)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> and this one as well:
> 
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/209315/photo_fraud_changes_war_perceptions/



This video clearly demonstrates that the safest action to take during a bombing campaign is to put on a wedding dress and hide under a pile of plush toys, preferably Disney-related.


----------



## Bill Smy (19 Aug 2006)

The Imperial War Museum holds two official Canadian photographs from the First World War which were posed for propaganda purposes:--

http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpcgi.exe?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpcgi.exe&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwmcollections.org.uk%2FqryPhotoImg.asp&TN=Uncat&SN=AUTO10951&SE=1616&RN=26&MR=25&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=1&XP=&RF=PhotoImgResults&EF=&DF=PhotoImgDetailed&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=1&ID=&MF=&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=59251&NR=0&NB=1&SV=0&BG=0&FG=0&QS=

http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpcgi.exe?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpcgi.exe&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwmcollections.org.uk%2FqryPhotoImg.asp&TN=Uncat&SN=AUTO10951&SE=1616&RN=27&MR=25&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=1&XP=&RF=PhotoImgResults&EF=&DF=PhotoImgDetailed&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=1&ID=&MF=&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=58173&NR=0&NB=1&SV=0&BG=0&FG=0&QS=


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2006)

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/extreme-makeover-beirut-edition.html


Just saw that today while looking for something else and thought it would tie in here....


----------

