snapped shot

Here's a list of stories related to Reuters' fauxtography scandal.

The Hajj (Reuters) scandal and issues with Beirut Photos in general.

There are 2 areas of concern: 1) Staging of photos and; 2) Doctoring of photos. Links are in Chronological order.

ISSUE 1, STAGING OF PHOTOS:

"Milking it" (Critical look at Qana photos)

"Hezbollywood? Evidence mounts that Qana collapse and deaths were staged"

"Who is this Man?" (Green Helmet)

"Qana - the director's cut"

"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (Green Helmet & Co, show up in Tyre)

(Powerline blog exposes yet another suspect group of photos same damage reported as new 12 days apart).

"Extreme Makeover - Beirut Edition" (Drinking from Home exposed more photos. This time, the same woman is shown losing her home first in Southern Beirut on 7/22 and then in the "suburbs of Beirut" on 8/5)

"Shaking the Dead" (Confederate Yankee shows staged photos of a "rescue worker" grasping a hand protruding from the rubble for both Reuters and AP)

"The Passion of the Toys" (Slublog has a collection of all the posed stuffed animals among the ruble)

"Lights, Camera, Action!"

ISSUE 2, DOCTORING OF PHOTOS

Beirut Smoke (Little Green Footballs uncovered an obviously doctored photo by Hajj)

It was quickly picked up here on FR

Reuters admitted the first photo (Beirut smoke) was doctored and suspended Hajj

A second doctored photo (F16) was identified by Jawa

Reuters admitted the second photo was also doctored, fired Hajj and withdrew all 920 of his photographs

Many thanks to PajamaTruthMafia for the links! And, don't forget about Zombietime's running account of this story as well.

In a followup to Gawker's excellent exposé, the New York Times has published a correction re-stating the facts surrounding a series of Lebanon photos.

A picture caption with an audio slide show on July 27 about an Israeli attack on a building in Tyre, Lebanon, imprecisely described the situation in the picture. The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed.

The correct description was this one, which appeared with that picture in the printed edition of The Times: After an Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Tyre, Lebanon, yesterday, one man helped another who had fallen and was hurt.

The original caption for this mess, if you can't read it in the picture above:

The mayor of Tyre said that in the worst-hit areas, bodies were still buried under the rubble, and he appealed to the Israelis to allow government authorities to pull them out.

Gawker's also noted that the supposedly-injured man seems to be doing well both before and after the offending picture, so it figures that the Gray Lady leaves much to be desired.

Oh, and with regards to the Mayor of Tyre's call for emergency assistance, I think I can understand why Israel might be a bit squeamish about that...

Today's photos are, as usual, straight from the Hezbullah playbook.



And, lest we forget who our enemies are:



In case there was any doubt of how widespread the threat of Islamofascism is, check out this next picture. Raising our children to want to kill other people is perfectly normal in our "diverse, multi-cultural" world, isn't it?



And, in the following shot, notice how the signs are (a) written up for our idiotic left-wing media, (b) suggest that somehow, Hamas is involved in the current Israeli war. Of course, if you've been following the war, you'd probably already be aware that it involves Hezbullah, but I figure this is another good illustration of how interchangable these radical islamic groups are. Alternately, these pictures could be leftovers from another demonstration unrelated to what's going on now. Either theory works for me, at this point. It's clear that there's NO trusting the press to give us an unbiased look at it.



The fist in the air: The universal symbol of radicalism, everywhere! Judging by the sign, it would seem that this crowd supports ALL terrorists, after all.



This next picture is a good illustration of Zombie's Type 4 fraud:



Notice the subtle bias there? "We take Hezbullah at their word, unquestionably, but if IDF says something, we'd best be sure people know it COULD BE FALSE."

Gimme a break!

It would appear that the New York Times has been dinged for falling for the ol' dead body gag. Hint to all of the Hezbullies that may be reading this: Make sure that your "dead" don't move around when they're being photographed.

My hat's off to Gateway Pundit for having such sharp eyes!

Shane Richmond, an editor at the Telegraph, has posted a half-hearted analysis of the recent Reuters scandal. Unfortunately, Shane leaves as many questions open as he does answers. For instance, he (and those who defend the media religiously) claims that questioning the media's use of imagery is pointless, as the core question is merely "Was a child killed in this bombing?"

Well, Shane, there is a slight problem with this approach: That a child is dead, is not in question. That's something that can fairly easily be deduced from photographic evidence, as it is.

The question now becomes, "How did this child die?"

If we're to believe the press, these children being paraded around in the news are dead as a result of Israeli brutality. Yet, as we've been repeatedly told by CNN, reporters are under the constant supervision of Hezbullah officials, and are threatened with death if they don't please their hosts.

With those conditions, how can we be expected to trust anything that comes from Lebanon? And why are the very same editors like you, Shane, who hold yourselves in such high esteem, so seemingly unwilling to fully disclose to your viewers and readers, that the sources for your stories are set on such unstable ground.

If you can come to expect such high journalistic standards from the Blogosphere, why do you not impose such standards on yourselves?

It's a question we'd all like to know.

Hat tip: Slublog via FreeRepublic!

It would appear that Hezbullah has issued a directive to all of the wire service photographers that all scenes of destruction should include a recognizable toy or two. Like the useful lemmings that they are, they were more than happy to comply:



Notice how the doll and children's books are the only things in this picture which are not covered in dust:




Check out Slublog's excellent analysis of these photographs for details.