[LANMaster]

Hat Tip - Cox & Forkum and Charles Johnson!





This weekend, Charles Johnson uncovered yet another breach of journalistic integrity: Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?. Reuters has since killed the bogus photo and posted the original, unaltered photo. Apparently the photograher thought the photo of Beirut being bombed wasn't dramatic enough.

From Ynet News: Reuters admits altering Beirut photo.

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs.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.
The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors. ...

Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged.


Reuters has dropped the freelance photographer, who is claming that he was just trying to "remove dust marks." Yeah right.

[linskyjack]

More likely he works for Hezbollah.

[thecoalman]

Clearly an amateur job... What has me confused is why doctor it anyway? Under the assumption the photo to the left is real what was added doesn't make it anymore or less dramatic.

[Stoner]

Yep....Reuters has become suspect for displaying the news as it happens.
But then, I've pointed out the dishonest reports in NewsMax before and some people kept posting from them as if they were an honest source.
And I've pointed out dishonesty in the LGF site, also.
Perhaps it is a game to see which service can 'get away with' the most with out being caught.....


It is getting more difficult to find consistant reporting.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Yep....Reuters has become suspect for displaying the news as it happens.
But then, I've pointed out the dishonest reports in NewsMax before and some people kept posting from them as if they were an honest source.
And I've pointed out dishonesty in the LGF site, also.
Perhaps it is a game to see which service can 'get away with' the most with out being caught.....


It is getting more difficult to find consistant reporting.

Fair enough. But you might note that LGF uncovered this fraud as well as the CBS/Rathergate fraud.

Clearly both sites are biased, but I think LGF has superior credibility to NewsMax.

[LANMaster]

Thanks coalman

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Clearly an amateur job... What has me confused is why doctor it anyway? Under the assumption the photo to the left is real what was added doesn't make it anymore or less dramatic.

If you look close it looks like he may have photoshopped out some buildings and parts of other buildings..

[Ciberblade]

Looks like an applied sharpen mask to me....possibly an alteration of white value as well.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

..............

Clearly both sites are biased, but I think LGF has superior credibility to NewsMax.

.


LOL!

Sorta like comparing 'bad' to 'worse'?..........

Reuters now has a problem with credibility.
Same with Rather, same with Newsmax, same with LGF.

I guess it goes to how much you want to believe because they posted it.


Poor standards, LAN....poor standards of reporting.
Poor ethical standards.
My mother worked for the managing editor of the Currier Mail newspaper in Australia, back in the late 30's. Guy by the name of Williams. His boss was the father of the current media mogul, Murdoch........
The first spelling or gramatical error drew a reprimand. The second a firing.
Factual errors required immediate dismissal.
Pretty strict.

But they had credibility.


Look how all media allows a percentage of acceptable errors.
Really shameful.
My local paper is truly a steaming pile of errors in every sense.

Just look at some of the crap posted at this site. Specifically the 911 conspiracy theories.
The sources are constantly discredited ....and yet used again, 10 or so posts later to prove some other point.


Meh!............

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

If you look close it looks like he may have photoshopped out some buildings and parts of other buildings..

I saw a discussion at a photo site on the alterations.
Common thought was that the photo was also cloned and portions stamped in place.
See the comparison in my attachment.
The circled building is a clone.
And look at the offset of comparable buildings.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I saw a discussion at a photo site on the alterations.
Common thought was that the photo was also cloned and portions stamped in place.
See the comparison in my attachment.
The circled building is a clone.
And look at the offset of comparable buildings.

You can see the same clone process in the added smoke as well

[Stoner]

The photos have also been cropped so the skylines are the same level in the side by side.
Adjust the photos to line up the buildings at the bottom of the photo, and...poof, the skyline just gained altitude

[LANMaster]

Good form, Jack.

I'm not sure about a credibility problem with LGF, though I'll certainly agree witrh a bias.

But you are correct about newsmax. I don't trust them anymnore unless the story has credible corroboration.

[LANMaster]

What I find most obvious is the clearly pasted puffs added to this. (which I have circled) The symmetry is quite obvious, even to me.



But a key question has to be asked ..... why?

The ONLY reason that crosses my mind is a desire to make the damage and horror worse than it already is.
Photoshopped pics and forged documents are far easier to spot than the commonplace practice of deliberate and willful misreporting at the scene of a battle, but for the exact same reason.

Case in point;

Another Massacre That Wasn't
More propaganda falls apart: Lebanon’s PM revises death toll from 40 to 1.

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) — Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Monday that one person was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern village of Houla, not 40 as he had earlier reported.

“The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed,” Reuters quoted Siniora as saying. “They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people ... thank God they have been saved.”

Siniora had earlier told Arab foreign ministers in Beirut that the attack “was a horrific massacre ... in which more than 40 martyrs were victims of deliberate bombing.”

Martyrs? That makes them sound a bit less than innocent, or at the very least like human shields for propaganda purposes.
Perhaps the human shields were all supposed to be there, but decided not to listen to Hizbullah directors?

P.S. No word on whether the one victim was armed or manning a missile launcher.

[bill.aam]

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 Lappin

Reuters 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

The 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.

Reuters admits to more image manipulation