Who says the media isn't above publishing doctored stories... Or stories that are out-right false? Can anyone say Dan Rather? Recent objections to staged photos at Qana are receiving little attention in Mainstream Media. I reckon they believe no one will notice the controversy if they simply keep quiet. But what does it say about such an organization? How can they ever be trusted again? Especially since Reuters has been caught yet again publishing doctored/staged photos...
For those of you who can't see what's wrong with the photo above-left, allow me point it out for you... Do you see the ripple-like repeating cloud pattern? This is amateurish at best. This is extremely bad Photoshop...
This is what Good Photoshop should look like...
Compare that to the original...
Good Photoshop...
Bad Photoshop...
Dan Rather got punk'd for peddling phony papers. Reuters gets punk'd for peddling phony photos... There's a pattern developing here, and I think it's only the tip of the ice berg
UPDATE: Monday, 9:15 pm
In fairness to Reuters, the photographer who shopped the photo was sacked, and his portfolio removed from their database. That's as it should be. But that only deals with the photographer. My bigget concern here is the photo's obvious-- to anyone with eyes --defects. I've worked with photoshop for 9 years now. This is obvious to me, and I can't imagine anyone not seeing it as well. Perhaps I give the average Joe too much credit-- I'll let others be the judge of that. Perhaps the guys in charge of approving the photo didn't really look at it... which raises even more concerns. Either way, Reuters was caught with its pants down. They've dealt with the photographer, and now it's time to deal with whatever issues allowed this to happen, and I suspect their doing that very thing even now. They need to ask themselves a few serious questions. And they need to be very honest in answering them.
I don't expect a public announcement detailing how they will ensure there's not of repeat of this. It would be nice-- the whole accountability thing... But I don't expect it.
Reuters? Interest? Reputation?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
But, hey, I'm sure that while the photos themselves weren't 'accurate', the context of the subject matter was... *roll eyes*
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060807/2006-08-07T162044Z_01_L06301298_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-REUTERS-DC.html
It's hard to find anywhere besides on the Blogs because Journalists tend to bristle at any suggestion that their work should ever be questioned, or held to any standard of truth or professionalism.
They would rather everyone simply swallow anything they tell us, hook, line, and sinker.
After all, we have a FREE press, you know...
Naturally these outlets deny any "chicanery" and they may very well be truthful in this as far as their own culpability is concerned. Here's a piece from the Associated Press which offers another perspective.
EU Referendum has the most detailed look into what the photos and timestamps "could" mean.
Then again, Reuters has had to issue another "Avisory: Picture Kill" for a doctored photo of an Israeli F-16. YNet.com has the story and another pair of interesting photos. Reuters agrees, however, that "tighter editing procedures" are needed, and will be applied to all photos coming out of the Mid East war.
As I've stated elsewhere... somewhere... here, I don't think this is merely a Reuters or AP or Agence France-Presse scandal, but rather, the mistakes made by these outlets are more indicative of a much larger problem within media... And I think I'll save that topic for a post of its own.
I think y'all all see conspiracies where none exists regarding the media. Blogs will always "beat" the MSM to a story because, except for the talking heads who point cameras, show live footage and comment extemporaneously, the MSM actually does need a little time to confirm. As it did in this case.
I have hired and fired correspondents over the years. Sometimes you get a real stinker. The Reuters case is a particularly egregious example.
But there is only ONE common trait: The only thing anyone who would doctor a photo, or make up a quote, is out to promote is self.
I am ignoring the usual spew from Tug and the guffaw of D.Dad. I always mean what I say on this blog. :-)
I don't know why the photos were manipulated by the photographer (not Reuters), but I don't see how it casts Israel in a more negative light.
Again, I'll have to concede that I don't have the psychic capabilities to know what the MSM nor their photog cohorts are thinking in their darkest of hearts.