Guest flatfour Posted August 7, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 7, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) A Reutters photographer in Beirut has been sacked for manipulating images to make them more critical of Israel. The people who revealed the manipulation say that many images are being manipulated against the interest of Israel. Well surprise, surprise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 Hi Guest flatfour, Take a look here Reutters photographer sacked for manipulation. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MrEd Posted August 7, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 7, 2006 Joseph Goebbels would be very proud of them. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 7, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 7, 2006 I bet it goes the other way too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted August 7, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 7, 2006 Albert, Do you suggest that the US government might be manipulating news? I'm shocked. BTW, all, did you know that the yellow "support the troups" magnetic ribbons we see on cars are provided by a group that is sponsored by the Pentagon? I'm waiting for my wife to ask, "What is the truth?" I hope I know what answer to give.... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 7, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 7, 2006 It was a very clumsy and obvious manipulation, Reutters ran it!!!!!!! and since the Lebenese are viewed as the real media manipulators, and so the story goes on and on with Israel......... etc...... but then again it is now old news NEXT................ Did you hear about the camera that dispensed with PJs, stills from video footage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 7, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 7, 2006 The photographer has just been on BBC News and claimed that he was just cleaning dust off the frame. Hmmm, perhaps a Photoshop course would be useful. I thought my cloning skills were poor... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 7, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 7, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Indeed, one of the best documentaries of late is Control Room. I believe a wonderful dissection of the media censorship that occurs everywhere. Of course, American media is guilty of this. I have no reason to trust anything... Actually, at least Michael Moore admits that he is biased. That is what news media need to put up a disclaimer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 8, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 8, 2006 The story in this instance goes beyond mere manipulation, it is claimed that the photographer, Adnan Hajj, composited flares into an image of an Israeli jet. The photographer could have done that for any subject matter and his images would have been pulled from the wire, as they were in this case. In photojournalism any manipulation of the sort described in this thread is unacceptable and sanctionable by summary dismissal of the culprit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted August 8, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 8, 2006 I agree with Conrad, this photographer does no service to ANYONE. As bad, horrid and skewed all the major media outlets are and Orwellian, people who are trying to get the truth out should at least try to abide by a minumum set of standards..I believe the idea is , through the photograph you are tying to convey to others who cannot be there a certain modicum of "what its like". I know this is a debate that can have a 1,000 permutations and interpretations.But if your tying to "get the truth out"....its important to make your best effort to be unbiased,thus Photoshop manipulation to creating "flares" is pure nonsense. Regards, Leica Mann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 8, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 8, 2006 The story in this instance goes beyond mere manipulation, it is claimed that the photographer, Adnan Hajj, composited flares into an image of an Israeli jet. Source? "It is claimed" by whom? Show the links. You may be right, but Haaretz (Reuters admits image of Beirut after IAF strike was doctored - Haaretz - Israel News) shows the two images Anthony mentioned at the start of the thread, and they are nothing like your rumor. Same recommendation also to Anthony: I've hunted it down, but when you've got a story you should give at least one source. Personal opinion, nothing more. But we owe it to the agency and the photographer to know what we're talking about. By the way, I'm guessing you mean Reuters? They've released a guy for the reason you cite, and I suppose "Reutters" is just a typing error? Respectfully, --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 8, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 8, 2006 An oldie but a goodie almost forgot about this one MAGNUM PHOTOS spot the Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 8, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 8, 2006 Hi Howard, the 'flare' photograph was a different one showing a jet firing flares. The BBC news here in the UK had both versions of the photograph. In the original there was a single flare fired from the aurcraft. In the doctored version there were four or so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted August 8, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 8, 2006 Some news reporters distinguish between reporting and editorializing and label the story as such. They should just admit that any story editing results in an opinion, some more balanced than others. Every photograph is a time and viewpoint edited opinion. Is there any ethical difference between removing something by photoshop or cropping by viewpoint? Cheers Pierre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leica_mage Posted August 8, 2006 Share #14 Posted August 8, 2006 Another classic is Yevgeny Khaldei's Reichstag photograph (02.05.1945) - the Soviet soldiers' several looted additional wristwatches finally disappearing in the "definitive" print... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted August 8, 2006 Share #15 Posted August 8, 2006 A great deal of news, if not all news is biased. When Barbara was studying for her masters in Paris one of her professors told them that when the at-death’s-door Generalisimo Franco dies everyone in class should get a copy every newspaper available and bring them to class. Each paper had a different slant on the Franco’s life. Only 7% of Reuters business is news – The rest is financial data, software and delivery services. News is where it started (Baron Julius Reuter in the mid 1800s setup a news service, receiving war dispatches from the continent via carrier pigeon). That particular division does have remarkably high standards, but as anything human generated, is imperfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 8, 2006 Share #16 Posted August 8, 2006 Source? "It is claimed" by whom? Show the links. You may be right, but Haaretz (Reuters admits image of Beirut after IAF strike was doctored - Haaretz - Israel News) shows the two images Anthony mentioned at the start of the thread, and they are nothing like your rumor. Howard - It is always advisable to get the complete facts before commenting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 8, 2006 Share #17 Posted August 8, 2006 Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our images were all manipulated from the J. Post to NY Times to Washington Post. In fact, it is a deliberate attempt to influence our minds unrighteously. That's why I'm a critical thinker and read the internet. At least on wikipedia, everyone can add to the articles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 8, 2006 Share #18 Posted August 8, 2006 Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our images were all manipulated from the J. Post to NY Times to Washington Post. In fact, it is a deliberate attempt to influence our minds unrighteously. That's why I'm a critical thinker and read the internet. At least on wikipedia, everyone can add to the articles. This is what we constantly face in photojournalism. No they are not. This is why there are ethical standards and people are sacked for breaking them. There will always be rogue photographers and publications, that is why vigilence is essential in the profession. BTW, most people spotting the discrepancies are other photojournalists who then report them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted August 8, 2006 Share #19 Posted August 8, 2006 It has not been my observation that Reuters has particularly high standards. They seem to me often to rely on local reporters, and local reporters in the Middle East are, by definition, partisan. They may not even know that they are partisan in the sense that Americans and Canadians use the word. I once had a long conversation (several hours long, as we were traveling together) with a university-educated archaeological guide in Cairo who accepted every anti-semitic libel ever made against Jews. They were simply part of his world view, and accepted as true. You'll find that all over the Middle East; it's just part of the cultures. CNN does the same thing, in hiring locals, by the way. CNN's reporting is awful. That's only one of the problems involving the use of locals; locals also often have a different version of what it 'true' than Westerners do. The bombing and the smoke happened, why not put it in? The fact that you weren't there to get it on film was just a question of timing, not of truth (in their view.) Further, it sorely impacts their income. Other cultures even have different view of cause an effect. There was once a pretty well-known guy arrested in Iran (pre-revolution) when his taxi struck and killed a pedestrian. The theory was that since he'd hired the taxi, the taxi was in his service and he was responsible for what it did. When it killed somebody, he was as liable for the death as the driver. A different way of thinking, and not 'untrue.' These kinds of things are almost impossible to sort out. If we want news that is done by our cultural standards, then we should hire westerners to do it. We don't, not because they're not available, but because locals are cheaper. This is particularly reprehensible in places like Iraq, where many of the locals are financially desperate, and we're paying them (very little) to take terrible risks (the people in New York want to see action, not a bunch of people sitting around.) So we're essentially tempting people to die so they can earn a few bucks to feed their kids...I think this Lebanese photographer was wrong in what he did; I think Reuters is to blame for it. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 8, 2006 Share #20 Posted August 8, 2006 That's why I'm a critical thinker and read the internet. At least on wikipedia, everyone can add to the articles. Which means that everyone can fabricate entries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.