Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on August 06, 2006, 09:43:12 AM
-
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html)
I guess slanting the way they reported the news wasn't enough
-
CNN and the AP are in on it too I think. Look at these two photographs - They're clearly staged. 2 separate pics, published by CNN as coming from two different agencies (ap and afp.gi), nearly identical, but clearly faked.
The smoke is obviously coming from a cigarette or something, and the shoe has been carefully propped up on a rock (visible under the shoe) to make it sit at the exact right angle for the smoke to come out.
(http://www.mindspring.com/~seanlong/images/story.kfargiladi.afp.gi.jpg)
(http://www.mindspring.com/~seanlong/images/t1.mideast.sun.05.ap.jpg)
Sure makes it look like CNN and the AP are in on the scam with Reuters...
-
either that or the owner had a horrible case of athletes feet.
-
the new Photo:
(http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/856455/LBN20_wa.jpg)
the old altered Photo:
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20060805/i/r3101797657.jpg)
ok, beside the poor editing of the altered Photo, i dont see much
of a difference to the new one? Smoke above the City, the unaltered
picture looks far more dramatic if you ask me. See what happen
if you let a amateur try to let a picture look more dramatic ;)
-
Originally posted by eagl
CNN and the AP are in on it too I think. Look at these two photographs - They're clearly staged. 2 separate pics, published by CNN as coming from two different agencies (ap and afp.gi), nearly identical, but clearly faked.
same picture from different angle, the 2nd pic is shoot later or earlier,
i dont see a editing here. Smoke come and goes, but both pics share the
same drama.
-
Take a look at the two pictures (of the shoe) again ghost. They are the exact photo... one has been altered. They are from the exact same position at the exact same time of day. All you need to do is look at the shadow in relation to the shoe and the road.
As for the picture "you can't see the difference in"... it sure looks like the difference is one smoke plume vs two. One suggesting a single target, the other suggesting more widespread targetting. Right?
There is merrit to the accusations. The imact of the adjustments is debatable, but you cannot deny there is SOME merrit.
-
News is a business, not a service.
They are out to make the most profits possible, just like any other business in the world.
-
PS... this is nothing new. The most memorable example is the baby sitting at Hiroshima sitting by itself crying on some steps. It was later revealed that the baby had been put there for the photo and was crying for her mother that was right there with the photographer (debate as to if the baby was "torn from her mother's arms").
-
It's also a good time to point out that news agencies are not legally oblicated to report the truth. They are still affected by liable and slander laws, but "the truth" is not the criteria. Thanks to Fox and the Florida S.C. for that ruling... and to every other news agency for not feeling that was a newsworthy decision (insert silent cheer from all of the networks here).
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Take a look at the two pictures (of the shoe) again ghost. They are the exact photo... one has been altered. They are from the exact same position at the exact same time of day. All you need to do is look at the shadow in relation to the shoe and the road.
they are shoot at different times, i just placed both over each other in
photoshop, they dont match, FOV is complete different, you see it
especialy on the Branches around, they look different.
The small rock on the bottom is what let this pic look prepaired for
shooting.
-
Then it's two cameras sitting side by side taking pictures at the exact same time. The shadows don't lie.
-
A photographer fakes a photo, propably for fame and money. I don't see a conspiracy here.
-
There's no rules on how you get your Pulitzer
-
You're right ghost, they both share the same fake drama.
If I want fiction and fake drama, I'll watch HBO. If I want fake news, I'll watch the Daily Show. As someone else mentioned, the city was bombed... So why can't they report THAT instead of making up stuff?
I can put a sneaker in the middle of LA, wait for some dude to get shot, toss a cigarette into the shoe, and create some fake drama... Is it news? No, it's the FAKE news. Is it drama, yea, FAKE drama. Is it accurate news reporting? Hell no, it's the FAKE news.
-
eagl, thrust me i dont need fake news too,
its hard to find out if its "prepaired" or a live shot,
what can we do? maybe this thread will show, to
not believe everything you see on TV or Inet ;)
The whole media is ***** up.
-
And this stuff illustrates why people should only watch Fox News!!! Get the real news, without spin or agenda.
Long live Bill O'Reilly!!!
-
I posted this on another related thread:
Happens on all sides!!!
CNN and Fox are no different, and their supposed 'credibility' almost makes them the worst.
Outfoxed is a really good documentary:
http://www.informationclearinghouse...article7798.htm
Spin is also excellent:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...181953466797353
direct from the tulips mouth
-
The guy who messed up the photo has been fired. Its great that these guys are busted, but to be fair that alteration did nothing to make the photo any more or less "shocking" so that was prolly not the intent.
-
Nilsen, it's no less fabrication.
-
Originally posted by moot
Nilsen, it's no less fabrication.
sure is..
never said anything else.
-
The Reuters photographer isn't the only one guilty of fraud.
http://aish.com/jewishissues/mediao..._in_Lebanon.asp
Links dead now.
-
How come the shoe is smoking but the car is not?
-
The car was a non-smoker.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
How come the shoe is smoking but the car is not?
Japanese car and American shoe? :p
We all know that American cars explode when they crash... Ive seen it on TV
-
Edbert it's because the shoe is a smoker. That's why it is dead, it smoked too many cigarettes. The helpful photographer propped it up on the little rock so it would die in relative comfort. The car appears to have died a long time ago and it's skeleton is there merely to enhance the message that smoking kills.
Seriously, I dunno why only the shoe is smoking. Ask cnn since they're the retards that posted up 2 different versions of the same faked scene. The filenames of the photos I linked are the original filenames from the CNN website so if you ask about them, they should have records of who shot them, who bought them, and what idiots posted them on the web.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Edbert it's because the shoe is a smoker. That's why it is dead, it smoked too many cigarettes. The helpful photographer propped it up on the little rock so it would die in relative comfort. The car appears to have died a long time ago and it's skeleton is there merely to enhance the message that smoking kills.
Seriously, I dunno why only the shoe is smoking. Ask cnn since they're the retards that posted up 2 different versions of the same faked scene. The filenames of the photos I linked are the original filenames from the CNN website so if you ask about them, they should have records of who shot them, who bought them, and what idiots posted them on the web.
Let me ask my question more precisely.
I figued the car was hit by a Maverick, Mk82, or GBU-xx since it is obvious according to local news that the IAF only targets little old ladies getting groceries or soccer-moms with cars full of school kids. I was jsut wondering how the photojournalist (LMFAO) came upon the scene of destruction so quickly that the shoe was still smoking yet the car that was just hit by Israeli terrorists was extinguished.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Let me ask my question more precisely.
I figued the car was hit by a Maverick, Mk82, or GBU-xx since it is obvious according to local news that the IAF only targets little old ladies getting groceries or soccer-moms with cars full of school kids. I was jsut wondering how the photojournalist (LMFAO) came upon the scene of destruction so quickly that the shoe was still smoking yet the car that was just hit by Israeli terrorists was extinguished.
Well.... assuming the shoe is not "rigged" then the car could have been sitting there from before and the shoe part of a later incident.
The shoe looks rigged tho. Why would a shoe smoke from the inside only?
-
If you look at the two photos carefully, you see that in the larger one, the whole scene is washed out and looks sorta smokey. That photographer has captured the scene accurately, including the fact that he doesn't know how to make his camera accurately represent the actual scene. In the smaller photo, the area is bright and sunny with a clear sky. It's like that right after the attack because it's Israel, the Israelis are god's children, and god wanted the weather to be nice while that poor shoe died.
So you see it all makes sense if you assume one of the two photographers has no talent and that God really likes dying Israeli shoes who smoke too much.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Let me ask my question more precisely.
I figued the car was hit by a Maverick, Mk82, or GBU-xx since it is obvious according to local news that the IAF only targets little old ladies getting groceries or soccer-moms with cars full of school kids. I was jsut wondering how the photojournalist (LMFAO) came upon the scene of destruction so quickly that the shoe was still smoking yet the car that was just hit by Israeli terrorists was extinguished.
WTF are you talking about. I never hit that car, nor did I try to hit on that car. I deny everything and demand proof! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
WTF are you talking about. I never hit that car, nor did I try to hit on that car. I deny everything and demand proof! :mad:
:lol
:noid
-
hmm... still wondering about the so called "hidden agenda"
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
hmm... still wondering about the so called "hidden agenda"
They hid it in a poor place, right out in the open.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
They hid it in a poor place, right out in the open.
what agenda
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
what agenda
Tainted photographs, slanted reporting, taking sides, altering the appearance and/or reporting of facts through omission or comission...known in some circles as...propoganda.
In the specific case of Reuters/AP/CNN/Al-Jazeera it is as simple as Hezbolla=good Israel=bad.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
...In the specific case of Reuters/AP/CNN/Al-Jazeera it is as simple as Hezbolla=good Israel=bad.
I don't know about all that. It seems to me the agenda=sensationalistic journalism sells more advertising spots.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Tainted photographs, slanted reporting, taking sides, altering the appearance and/or reporting of facts through omission or comission...known in some circles as...propoganda.
In the specific case of Reuters/AP/CNN/Al-Jazeera it is as simple as Hezbolla=good Israel=bad.
based on that picture alone, or do you have other proof of that agenda?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
based on that picture alone, or do you have other proof of that agenda?
The proof is in the pudding, all one can do is provide examples:
http://aish.com/jewishissues/mediao..._in_Lebanon.asp
As far as being biased versus sensationalistic is concerned...
When I see the same things done from the other side of the conflict I'll accept that they are being sensationalistic. Show them to me.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
The proof is in the pudding, all one can do is provide examples:
http://aish.com/jewishissues/mediao..._in_Lebanon.asp
As far as being biased versus sensationalistic is concerned...
When I see the same things done from the other side of the conflict I'll accept that they are being sensationalistic. Show them to me.
The story you are linking to is from a jewish site. Is that supposed to prove anything? Not saying the site is not reliable because I know nothing about it but still.. you know what i mean.
My point is... how do you translate an edited picture taken by a freelace photojournalist into an "agenda" by Reuters?
When you use freelacers there is a sertain risk, so i would say that this is a hint that maybe the desk at Reuters have missed that it was edited and are guilty of not double checking photos. If this was part of an "agenda" then Reuters are amateurs. They should have made batter fakes when they sit and plan their "agenda".. Its too poorly planned and excecuted by Reuters to make it part of an "agenda". If it had been a 5th rate news blog on the web than maybe.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The story you are linking to is from a jewish site. Is that supposed to prove anything? Not saying the site is not reliable because I know nothing about it but still.. you know what i mean.
Of course I do, and your point is valid. But consider please that it takes one bias to be willing and/or able to illustrate another. We expect media sources that claim to be unbiased to be...UNBIASED. Whatever became of the investigative reporter who only sought to report truth? I know bias occurs in both directions, it just irks me when it comes from those who claim no bias, a claim which I did not see on the jewish website.
Originally posted by Nilsen
My point is... how do you translate an edited picture taken by a freelace photojournalist into an "agenda" by Reuters?
When you use freelacers there is a sertain risk, so i would say that this is a hint that maybe the desk at Reuters have missed that it was edited and are guilty of not double checking photos.
If I saw the same thing being done towards or from both sides (by Reuters/AP/etc.) I'd agree, so far I'm only seeing the bias toward one side of this conflict. I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility that it is happening both ways, but so far nobody has shown me such, hence I say they are biased in favor of Hezbollah.
I use the term bias in place of the one I truly beleive to be the case, willing mouthpeices of the Hezbollah/AlQaeda/Hamas/PLO propoganda machines. But my beleifs are simply my own bias, which is okay since I make no claims to be unbiased. This whole mess has come down to an us-against-them to me.