Photo Fraud in Lebanon

[IrisHope]

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

[IrisHope]

Pretty disheartening.

[sue-bert]

And yet, not surprising.

[Larissa]

Oh wow, I guess I'm naive but I thought that Reuters was a pretty credible source.

This is so disheartening.

[IrisHope]

I know. I thought Reuters was credible too.

[Asha]

And yet, not surprising.

ita. it seems like the media and hezbellah are in cohorts to villify israel.

[MLA]

Interesting, but that's not exactly a neutral website, is it? I'm sure that this sort of exaggeration happens on both sides of conflict.

[lawyerlee]

I could have Photoshopped that better than the photog did. WTF?! :(

[Larissa]

Interesting, but that's not exactly a neutral website, is it? I'm sure that this sort of exaggeration happens on both sides of conflict.

No, not at all a neutral website. I agree that the exaggeration probably happens on both sides of the conflict but until now I (stupidly, I guess) didn't believe that photos were ever touched at all. I don't know what I'm more upset about, that the photo retouching actually happens or that I was stupid enough to think that Mickey was truly there and the photographer just happened to catch it.

[MLA]

Oh, and Reuters fired the guy who messed w/the first photo in that montage (the smoke rising from Beirut). They were pissed about it. I read an article about that on CNN, and honestly the photo before he photo shopped it looked worse (in terms of smoke and stuff) than after he messed with it. Here's the CNN article on the subject, followed by the Reuters article.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/reuters.photog.reut/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

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

[MLA]

No, not at all a neutral website. I agree that the exaggeration probably happens on both sides of the conflict but until now I (stupidly, I guess) didn't believe that photos were ever touched at all. I don't know what I'm more upset about, that the photo retouching actually happens or that I was stupid enough to think that Mickey was truly there and the photographer just happened to catch it.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. The fact that it happens at all is disheartening. It makes me question even more what I see in the news. But at least Reuters has done something about it (see my post above).

[Noa]

Here is another example of photo fraud - a line-up of covered bodies with one of them starting to get up.... The article is called "Jihadis playing POSSUM"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

This stuff really pisses me off. Ugghhhh.

[aussie]

Here is another example of photo fraud - a line-up of covered bodies with one of them starting to get up.... The article is called "Jihadis playing POSSUM"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

Actually, that photo was proven not doctored. Opinion Journal ran this the following day: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2006/08/06/post-on-washington-post-removed/print/

[thelittlebabu]

Here is another example of photo fraud - a line-up of covered bodies with one of them starting to get up.... The article is called "Jihadis playing POSSUM"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

This stuff really pisses me off. Ugghhhh.
Actually, Taranto recanted this (look for the update further down in the article) because it could be rigor mortis. However, there's been a lot of shady media actions in Lebanon lately. The Reuters photos were bad, but I think the deliberate posing of dead children was even worse.

ETA: Cross-posted w/aussie. Whoops!

[paulinaaa]

I know someone who works as a photojournalist in Australia and I hear how every so often they add 'touches' to dramatize certain photographs.

It's the same with words...exaggeration with rhetoric or vagueness find their place in the newspapers or on the radio. But with photographs, it's just so vivid and impactful.