[photodawg]

just because Reuters posts the pic with a story doesnt mean they actually took it. They could have bought it from a freelance journalist/photog who was trying to make a good pic in order to have future pics bought


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Its not a "good" pic its a fake pic. he's altering the reality of a news event and if used the image should clearly state that it is an illustration. This is an attempt to deceive. Reuters is culpable, because if they purchased the picture freelance, they are still responsible for its authenticity if used as a news photo.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

Its not a "good" pic its a fake pic. he's altering the reality of a news event and if used the image should clearly state that it is an illustration. This is an attempt to deceive.

When I said good I meant good from the photog's perspective. Good as in, more likely the freelance photog would have a better chance at selling future pictures to Reuters/AP/etc. Or maybe the photographer is a hamas supperter. I have no idea.