Published News Photo of Beirut Admitted Fakes

A photograph showing damage to Beirut after an attack by the Israeli Air Force has been withdrawn because it was faked. Reuters has suspended the photographer until an internal investigation is complete. This same photographer is also under suspicion for faking other photographs from Lebanon. Reuters has removed the photograph from its website and has said that it will post a corrected version of the photo. Reuters states that it takes this very seriously and that it has a policy against manipulated or edited photographs.



When you consider that the majority of people's opinions are formed by what they read, see or hear from the media, to me this is very serious. There used to be a commercial that asked "Is this live or Memorex?". Now we have to ask "Is this real or Photoshop?". It used to be that the news consisted of unbiased, accurate, documented information that allowed the public to form an educated opinion on what was going on. Now all we get is unsubstantiated, tabloid type reporting. Who cares if it is accurate as long as it gets the public's attention. It used to be that the information shaped the viewpoint of the story, now the viewpoint is established first and the goal is to find information to substantiate it even at the cost of accuracy.

What next?
As if the conflict in the Middle East wasn't volatile enough, a photographer has decided to fudge the news....shameful.

This thread has some great info and images about the faux photo:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Great just what we need.

Next thing you know somebody on here will claim its proof that Israel hasn't bombed Beirut.

I have a few personal bets with myself as to who will be the first but I won't mention names.

I find it strange that on Reuters.com I have yet to find anything indicating that there was a picture retracted. Under retractions there is no sign of this picture or any information on it. I am not saying that it isn't true, but I'm not saying yet that it is true. Looking around that site, I see a lot of questionable items, and I also would think they would provide some sort of link to Reuters, which I have yet to find either.

Again, I'm not defending anyone, and I'm not making assumptions, I just find it odd that this isn't easily found on Reuters when all other retractions are.

*Edit - I have gone through every correction from Reuters back to Wednesday, and see nothing on this, yet there are tons of retractions. I am contacting Reuters on this and will post if I get confirmation. Call me a conspiracy theorist (haha) but I find this to be strange that there is no retraction information when there are about 20 other retractions per date.

[edit on 8/6/06 by niteboy82]

niteboy82
I am contacting Reuters on this and will post if I get confirmation.

Here, let me help you out.
I don't think its a story retraction, its a photo replacement. Quite different.

Journalism.co.uk spoke to Reuters' PR head Moira Whittle, who gave the following information.

"Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut," Reuters' PR head Moira Whittle told Journalism.co.uk on Sunday. "Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures.

"As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software."

about.reuters.com...
Moira Whittle
Head of PR - Media & Editorial
Tel: +44(0) 207 542 3436
[email protected]

Please be sure to let us all know what she says in writing including the email headers so that the validity of the information is not able to be contested by either side, ok?

Thanks,


[edit on 8/6/06 by makeitso]

Originally posted by niteboy82
I find it strange that on Reuters.com I have yet to find anything indicating that there was a picture retracted. Under retractions there is no sign of this picture or any information on it. I am not saying that it isn't true, but I'm not saying yet that it is true. Looking around that site, I see a lot of questionable items, and I also would think they would provide some sort of link to Reuters, which I have yet to find either.

Again, I'm not defending anyone, and I'm not making assumptions, I just find it odd that this isn't easily found on Reuters when all other retractions are.

*Edit - I have gone through every correction from Reuters back to Wednesday, and see nothing on this, yet there are tons of retractions. I am contacting Reuters on this and will post if I get confirmation. Call me a conspiracy theorist (haha) but I find this to be strange that there is no retraction information when there are about 20 other retractions per date.

[edit on 8/6/06 by niteboy82]

I believe that reuters runs two websites. one is a general news site that anyone can access and the other is for subscribers to Reuters news services.

I ended up calling Reuters because I did not get an email back, and I can be slightly impatient at times. I just received a call back from them, and was told the photos were found to be doctored, the photographer in question was a freelance photographer, and he will not be used anymore.

I was the doubting Thomas, but I feel that sometimes it is necessary to do some research. On the brighter side, I think after this time of calling (my 3rd) for confirmation on a story, I can definitely recommend to you all that when doing reporting, and wanting further information, the people over at Reuter's are extremely helpful.

I stand corrected.

Take a look at this apology by Reuters...


They are sorry for any "inconvience" (inconvenience). Inconvenience for whom? Sorry for getting caught. I bet they'll make sure photo editing software will be properly used next time...

" 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.

"This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him," Whittle said in a statement issued in London.

Hajj worked for Reuters as a non-staff freelance, or contributing photographer, from 1993 until 2003 and again since April 2005.

Obviously the photographer was framed. (jk)


Props to niteboy for taking the time to do the research.

Originally posted by grover
Great just what we need.

Next thing you know somebody on here will claim its proof that Israel hasn't bombed Beirut.

I don't see anyone claiming that in here, yet it shows that there are reporters who apparently fake news for their own political agenda/propaganda, in this case an agenda against Israel.

Originally posted by grover
I have a few personal bets with myself as to who will be the first but I won't mention names.

That's not really a good sign when people start placing bets with themselves.....

Absolutely unforgivable. I'm glad the guy is out of work as far as Reuter's is concerned.

Interesting. Would anyone happen to have managed to save the doctored photo? It would be interesting to see what was added.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Interesting. Would anyone happen to have managed to save the doctored photo? It would be interesting to see what was added.

The photo can be found in the link provided by the member who submitted this article. Clik on that link and you will see the photo, it is an obvious fake.



[edit on 7-8-2006 by Muaddib]

Very fake, indeed. The clouds on the left have the same pattern.

I wonder why the image had even been doctored. The city in the original looks just as worse in destruction, than the doctored.




[edit on 7-8-2006 by DJMessiah]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I believe that reuters runs two websites. one is a general news site that anyone can access and the other is for subscribers to Reuters news services.

Allow me to confirm that.

However, all sites are accessible by the general public. What is not accessible are the "wire service" feeds, that is, the stills photos and video you put into your newspaper, magazine or news bulletin.

Therefore, while you can log onto rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk... to see what Reuters is giving the world of television, unless you have satellite uplink and a Reuters decoder, you cannot access the actual video you are reading about, whereas it is my job to take the video and turn it into news bulletins.

And I can confirm that Reuters helpdesk lives up to its name.

I saw on TV a few days ago (ABC, Channel 7,9,10???) where they said that Hisz'Allah were firing rockets from the within towns.

I watched as I saw rockets being fired from what appeared to be a building on a corner.

Then I thought "hang one, I've seen this".

The real video is of rockets being launched from an area with trees everywhere.

The ingenious video people had super-imposed a white building on top of the rocket traces an dit appeared they were being fired from on top/within a building.

I had a little belief in the media, however my believe in the media now is absolute zero.

The media people who do this should be thrown in jail for 10 years.

Cheers

JS

Heres a link to the pic but there is also a link with a gif showing that the buildings in the background are cloned...naughty, naughty

littlegreenfootballs.com...

I live in SA & I find the local news to be biased against Isreal. There has been marches to parliament threatening strikes if SA doens't impose sanctions against Isreal.

I think these people are ignorant. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation which needs to be stopped. Israel is going about it a "little" heavy-handed but they cant let Hez continue to promote terror.

Israel said they would ceasefire if Hez stops rocket attacks & return the soldiers...but nothing.

This doesn't make sense....even before Adobe Photoshop images were manuliplated in the dark room. Remember that famous photo of that bus boy kneeling over Bobby Kennedy? Well it had been seriously cropped and the print was made through a high contrast filter to make it more stark and as a counter balance of the flatness of the original photo. Even in those famous photos of civil war dead the bodies were rearranged to make the picture more dramatic....so I ask what is the big deal. Do you really think the playmate of the month's skin and boobs are really that smooth and blemish free?

I wil give you media selectivity , the London Times seems to be ignoring this story . It did not appear in the Sunday Times of 06/08/2006 [ yesterday ] nor todays paper , Monday [ 07/08/2006 ] or the Times Online website , strange ?

proof that the propoganda from Western news agencies, aren't all one way traffic.

Oh, I suppose the Zionists placed agents in Reutres to discredit them

Remember the fake British Army abuse photos in the Mirror. Must of been the work of Neo-Con, Christian-Judeo, Elite of the Elite, insert similair tags...etc etc

[edit on 7-8-2006 by Peyres]