Reutergate: the blogosphere fact-checks your ass; what do you fact-check?
Kate of Small Dead Animals has given the story the perfect name: Reutergate.
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (he of “Rathergate” and the superimposed forged memos fame) has caught Reuters red-handed in allowing a Photoshopped image of the war in Lebanon to pass muster. Once again, the blogosphere is living up to its unofficial motto: “we fact-check your ass.”
Reuters–unlike Rather–has admitted the fraud and removed the photo. And perhaps the most interesting factoid about the entire story is the identity of the photographer, one Adnan Hajj, who was also the Reuters photographer at Qana.
The original “gate”–Watergate–was huge news at the time. But as the years have rolled by, and nearly every scandal has been given the “gate” appellation, most of them have been of little or no consequence.
Reutergate should be important, but not just because of this particular incident–which, in isolation, would not matter a whole lot. Its importance lies in the fact that it’s part of a larger pattern in which once-respected news agencies and newspapers have become compromised. Not only do they regularly violate the cardinal rule of journalism–fact-checking and photo-checking: in short, truth–but they have become the willing or unwilling, ignorant or knowledgeable, tools of the enemy (see this).
Second Draft is a website devoted to explaining how the media has disseminated the lies of “Pallywood” around the globe, creating a fictional reality that has influenced perceptions about the Middle East, especially in Europe, where the most famous Pallywood oeuvre, “Caught in the Crossfire” (otherwise known as “the death of Mohamed al Durah”), was widely publicized and fueled anti-Israel sentiment. It’s since become clear that in Qana the press coverage of the aftermath was at least partly a Pallywood production, as well.
I wonder how much coverage this incident will get outside of the blogosphere. And the blogs, unfortunately, are preaching mainly to the choir. Just now, for instance, I Googled “reuters photoshop lebanon,” and all that came up in the way of news stories was an article in the Jerusalem Post, and a short one at that.
It remains to be seen if the MSM will even see this as a wakeup call to vet their stringers better, or whether it will end with the suspension of Adnan Hajj. But it’s about much more than Hajj; the truth is that this photo wasn’t even a good example of Photoshopping. As many observers have pointed out, it was crude and obvious and should have been caught–if anyone had been looking.
The same, of course, was true of the Dan Rather memos. Anyone familiar with the difference between a typewriter and a word processor could–and should–have seen the forgery. But one had to have been looking. And the press has stopped looking.
So it’s not just about stringers, although that’s part of it. Whether or not it’s also about bias (and I happen to believe it is), at the very least it’s about standards. The MSM needs to raise them, and to fact-check and photocheck and proofread itself in a new way. It needs to realize that it is now one of the major fronts in the war in which we are currently engaged, and that it’s being co-opted by forces that are not only the enemy, but are the enemy of a free press as well.
Pallywood is a great example that there are guillible people on this planet. If they can be manipulated by one side, then they are fair game to the manipulation of everyone else.
Something doesnt add up. Eric Alterman of The Nation says that the media is biased in favor of conservatives; he couldnt possibly be wrong.
Being 50-something, a child of the 60’s myself, I find myself at a loss over all of this. Not just this photo, but many other reports and pictures of the past year or two. Back in the day, back in my youth, if a news report said ‘Reuters’ or ‘AP’ or ‘BBC’…..among others, gosh, you could take that to the bank. Or so we thought then. If Reuters said it was so, well then, by god it must be. Who/what/where/why did these once vaulted and respected news orginazations sell out? Or have they ever been feeding us just a line of one sidedness that we simply did not see back then? It’s hard to know for certain, but I tend to think more that they were more professional and honest once upon a time. Nowadays, I take anything I read with a huge grain of salt and spend way too many hours searching, sleuthing and reading a multitude of sites from every which where. It ‘used’ to be so much easier, just grab a paper or catch an evening news program……sigh, at least it seemed so back then. Shame on Reuters and bravo to intrepid bloggers et al who keep them accountable today.
It was an honest mistake, it seems.
” “The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under,” said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters. “
Adam,
If you believe that after reading all the Photoshop professionals dissect the photo manipulation, I got a bridge you might be interested in buying. I will, for the moment that you left out the sarcasm tag in your comment.
I’m a Photoshop dabbler and when I first looked at the image, “Clone tool” popped right into my mind. I’ve got grandkids who could do better and do regularly.
Moira is doing damage control as fast as her little legs can carry her.
I’m sorry Adam…but do you honestly believe that? I am a very, very novice photoshop user and even I could see the manipulations immediately…without anyone pointing them out to me. Are we to assume that ‘professional’ photo editors missed something so blatently obvious? Folks whose jobs and livelyhoods rely on excellance in photography? Sorry…that just does not add up to this reader.
Powerline has a nice selection of this man’s ‘work’ this evening and Ken Sanders offers the opinion that there is NO WAY he alone could have taken all that he is credited with. Travel time and distances involved make it almost impossible. Interesting point, and one he follows with the questions…is this man an alias of sorts for any number of various Hezbo ‘photographers’?
Just like a cadet reporter at NYT.
Who, in these days, takes all of their news from just one source? Such as FoxNews?
I don’t know who would take all their news from one source these days….as I stated. I could well use the several hours I spend reading online for other things, but a wide and varied number of sources is vital to get any sort of ‘balance’ and any accurate picture of what is going on. You scornfully cite Fox….should I assume you find CNN more ‘accurate’?
Prob,
I think you’re being a bit disingenuous yourself. I clicked on your link and it doesn’t name Fox News or any other specific media outlet. If the story was about Fox specifically I’d expect the Indy to emphasize that. Your link implies that the story is about Fox but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
“disingenuous” is the least of Probligo’s attributes. He has an agenda and it is left anti-Americanism, though he will use the “some of my best friends are…” argument. Take any thing he writes with a about a half pound crystal of Kosher salt.
Thanks! Being new hereabouts I was attempting to be ‘polite’. That’s about the way I read his comment though. 🙂
In light of Reutergate I was ammused to read the following in the local fishwrapper this morning:
In print or online, our standards don’t vary
Sunday, August 06, 2006
BENJAMIN J. MARRISON
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
At a breakfast speech Friday, David Broder, the legendary columnist for The Washington Post, was asked how journalism has changed during his lifetime. One of the main points of his answer was a deep concern about how much information is being disseminated on the Internet without any editing or factchecking.
Our local rag, got a deserved Pulitzer many years ago under the old owners, but is now circling the drain and is madly phone spamming to try to get subscribers.
I always tell them the same thing, “My bird died and doesn’t need a toilet anymore.”
Ginger-I feel for you. I well remember high school journalism classes and my teacher’s straight-faced lecture about how journalists subscribed to a code of honest inquiry and fair reporting, the search for truth, etc. What suckers we were then.
I agree, it used to be so easy, pick up a paper, and there it was, like we were there in person, the news showing how things really were.
Now you pick up a paper and its like picking up a snake that’ll bite you or
getting taken by the Nigerian Bank scam.
Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg! All the media had to do was straight reporting but.somewhere along the line they decided that propaganda was the way to go. After that, it was the slippery slope all the way and the endpoint is Hell and irrelevance; once your reputation is gone what have you got–nothing.
There is a good reason why anti-western arab radicals use the mainstream media of the west itself to mount their anti-western attacks and deceptions.
The arab world is a backwater, with a GDP less than that of Spain, even counting all the arab oil. In the arab world, a bestselling book prints maybe 5,000 copies at the most. In all the arabic world of 300,000,000 people, fewer books are published than in tiny Greece, of 40 million people.
Arabs know that arabs lie, as a cultural custom. Arabs enjoy arab media, but they do not really trust it. They know no one else trusts arab media either–so they do whatever it takes to get their material published in western media, rather than backwater arab media.
What westerners are just now discovering is that western media is willing to lie (Dan Rather) as well. How rare for Reuters to admit its error.
I looked on the Reuters home page and I didn’t see any apology. Maybe I “missed” it but it seems to me that they should have published this in big, bold letters. As a post above comments, Reuters made its name on being a trustworthy source of information. Seems to me that letting this go is inviting a PR disaster – the fact that they fired the Lebanese photographer notwithstanding. Maybe it’s all about propaganda these days and credibility doens’t mean s**t.
Much more dangerous than this is the creative “morphing” with facts that is taking place:
Associated Press:
“Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative WMD findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at “the best factual account,” his group’s densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.
“It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another,” he said in an e-mail. “It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts.”
The creative “morphing” goes on.”
— CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB1EO80.shtml
—
Thank God for BOTB (bloggers on the ball) – I hope we are all sending strongly worded emails/calls to Reuters….
What does ‘fact checking’ have to do with a ‘doctored’ photograph?
Despite the fact that it was an irresponsible action, it hardly changes the facts about Israel’s destruction of Lebanon. Which is far worse than the Reuter’s photograph could ever depict.
I don’t think Reuter’s needs to apologize. It has fired the photographer. Arguing there was some kind of ulterior motive is ridiculous – the kind of speculative nonsense that provides a distraction from the devastation and escalation that continues.
“I’m a Photoshop dabbler and when I first looked at the image, “Clone tool” popped right into my mind. I’ve got grandkids who could do better and do regularly.”
And as a dabbler, we can take your qualifed assertions with the utmost seriousness they deserve, lol.
“Reutergate”???
Boy – with all that has happened in Lebanon and Israel yesterday, you’d think(or hope)the dicussion would be on something relevant…..
Right on the edge of comment spam, yammer. Post substantive comments not repetitive one liners. That is an old troll trick to put space in a comment thread. But you know that.
I’m responding to different posts, and making different points – not trying to be a spammer.
But for the sake of having a decent discussion, and seeing as you’ve designated yourself the official monitor of the board, I’ll try to refrain…
It is not a self designation, yammer.
>>>>>Boy – with all that has happened in Lebanon and Israel yesterday, you’d think(or hope)the dicussion would be on something relevant…..
Ginger,
that is the role of the trolls. To deflect discussion and to try to clog up the comments with pointless comments, that they know are un-welcome, and to make the comments threads unreadable.
I am a technical “person” who at times, consults with Neo regarding the trolls, who think they are anonymous but who, in reality are not, given technical means.
But, I agree and allow me to point you and others to Pajamas Media’s round up of Reutergate.
It would appear that other Photoshopped images are being found almost hourly. It would also appear that the photographer, who has been “suspended” but probably not fired, is quite possibly a group identity for several Islamic propagandists.
Looks like the spam-trolls have one less source of “unbiased” articles to try to convince themselves with.
Yes, themselves. That’s what all the spam-trolling is, after all… desperately screaming at the real world, in the hope that it will relent and let them go back to their multiculturalist fantasies.
Hey, it works on their parents.
Boy – with all that has happened in Lebanon and Israel yesterday, you’d think(or hope)the dicussion would be on something relevant…..”
Right, and you get to determine what’s relevant, right Yhamir? Be nice if that were the case.
BTW, still waiting for a response in the previous thread.
Adam wrote:
It was an honest mistake, it seems.
“The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under,” said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters. ”
And he provided no link. The strange thing here is that the doctoring of the photo was digital manipulation. He was not working in some primative dark room with bad lighting and dust, or if he was it doesn’t matter because he was using a computer. Someone is telling a bald face lie.
A lie? Brad, say it isn’t so. Otherwise we shall have to believe that it is ok to lie to infidels. What’s that you say? It is ok in Islam to lie to the infidels.
Well, never mind, then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys
“It would also appear that the photographer, who has been “suspended” but probably not fired, is quite possibly a group identity for several Islamic propagandists.”
Where did you read that?
Nevermind the trolls, Brad.
Like that scentofcrap character who likes to share his bigotry by posting from hate sites, or changing the subject to Islam and his obvious ignorance of it.
Poor soul…
By the way, crap – if it’s not a self designation – who designated you?
Ya know, Photoshop comes with filters that remove dust and scratches from pictures, very effectively.
Those filters do not produce effects like the smoke in those photos, though. Only the Clone tool does that, and it’s not used by professional photo editors simply because it’s so obviously fake in most situations.
What is so unfortunate about this is that it doesn’t seem to be a wake up call, I didn’t see it on the news, nor did I see it in the paper, or the local news.
I’m willing to bet this isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last.
You people realize we’re talking about a column of smoke, here? – not superimposing a fake child scribbling hate on a fake Israeli missle.
Or fake buildings, and fake civilians being destroyed by fake Israeli hi-tech weaponry.?
Just checking…
“What is so unfortunate about this is that it doesn’t seem to be a wake up call, I didn’t see it on the news, nor did I see it in the paper, or the local news.”
Because it’s not really news Jenn – except for the paranoid, delusional Jewish facists and they’re hypocritical ‘Christian’ supporters.
As I say, there is a war going on, and thousands are without homes, families and are dying as we speak, countries are preparing for escalation, markets are shaky, etc etc
Priorities, eh?
I hope civilised people can find a way to bring muslims out of the dark ages. If not, wars like Israel vs. Hisballa will spring up all over Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
Islam is an old violent religion that never grew up, unlike Judaism and Christianity. Hinduism is fortunately not a messianic religion of apocalyptic goals, like Islam. Even Communism, with its over a hundred million murdered, was never as barbaric as Islam.
yham. I’m not saying the following because I think you don’t know it.
I’m saying it because you think we don’t know it.
The smoke photo was doctored to make a single strike look like an indiscriminate strike. That’s the kind of evidence you need for your points, and, since it doesn’t exist, Reuters has been manufacturing it for you.
We got it.
Brad was asking for the link to the statement by Moira Whittle of Reuters.
It was reported in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/747018.html
” “The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under,” said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.”
—
Ya know, Photoshop comes with filters that remove dust and scratches from pictures, very effectively.
Those filters do not produce effects like the smoke in those photos, though. Only the Clone tool does that, and it’s not used by professional photo editors simply because it’s so obviously fake in most situations.
Crap, I hate when my computer double-posts.
“The smoke photo was doctored to make a single strike look like an indiscriminate strike.”
1)Thats the kind of assertion that would require you to provide some kind of proof.
2)A photograph of smoking coming from a missle strike doesn’t prove anything eitherway, I would offer.
3)There is plenty of evidence that Israel is indiscriminately targeting civilians. A doctored photograph that wouldn’t prove that anyway, really isn’t necessary.
You can’t be that stupid.
You just can’t….
Yhamir, you’re retarded. If you would take the time to look, the doctored photo also shows buildings destroyed that truly are not. I think the real question is, “you do realize we are talking about the truth vs. the lies?”
Very much the same way the MSM reports how many civilians were killed when there is no way to tell a member of Hezbollah from any body else.
Via Drudge:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-07T162027Z_01_L06301298_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-REUTERS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950988
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html
It’s not just one photo.
yham. Give it up.
We know better.
“Indiscriminate” requires proof.
There isn’t any except what Reuters and their buddies have manufactured.
We know this, and you know this, and we know you know this.
As I say, try something else that hasn’t been disproven yet. You could have a couple of weeks free before somebody got around to it.
Adam,
The photographer can lie all he wants; at this point no reasoable person is going to believe him.
Yhamir,
These photos represent useful propaganda for the Islamic radicals who provoked Israel by violent actions; the facts favor Israel, but pictures of dead children can quickly overcome facts and logic.
Hence ‘Green Helmet Dude’ and posing dead children for Reuters . . .
yhamir said:
“You can’t be that stupid.
You just can’t….”
No, we can’t…but apparently you can.
Stumbley
It’s Rush’s fault, it’s O’Reiley’s fault, it’s non think neocons’ fault….it is everyone’s fault except whose fault it actually is….in this case Reuters. No, we are not that stupid…we can see what is clearly in front of our face. Seems others can not though, doesn’t it?
Richard wrote: “ham. Give it up.
We know better.”
Oh good.
Looking at the photos I’m struck at how insignifant the changes are.
But then I’m not a hysterical, ranting retard.
Oh well….
I think “Wankergate” would be more appropriate….
Poor Yhamir. The Koran says it is okay to lie to the kuffar, but Allah has not seen it that the kuffar believe his lies.
Sad, sad indeed. Perhaps he’d have more luck with the French.
Yhamir,
The photo is a lie, any doctored photo is a lie. If you support or find insignificant the changes in a photo, then you support, or find insignificant, lies. You undermine your own credibility.