Posted on 08/06/2006 4:35:24 AM PDT by Crazieman
Edited on 08/06/2006 5:09:15 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
PICTURE KILL FOR LBN20 TRANSMITTED AT APPROXIMATELY 1408GMT ON AUGUST 5, 2006. PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE WAS IMPROPERLY USED ON THIS IMAGE. A CORRECTED VERSION WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THIS ADVISORY. PLEASE REMOVE THE IMAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEMS. WE ARE SORRY FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. REUTERS LBN20 Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON) REUTERS NEWS PICTURES
See Also
Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat (to Little Green Footballs)
That and the fact that their employees are issuing death threats.
Reign, Reuters issued a kill order on the pic. What more do you need?
Shouldn't Reuters subject ALL their photographs to simple statistical and technical tests prior to going out over the wires? Aren't they responsible for quality control, veracity, provenance and content? Or does forwarding an antisemite agenda trump all other considerations in the eyes of Herr Reuters' heirs?
This is Lucy Ramirez level sophistication. I certainly hope the source of this photograph is fired, at the least. What controls are in place to prevent this from happening again?
Like the political bias of CBS (huge, endemic, pervasive and deeply ingrained) does Reuters' bias insinuate itself into all its reporting, to point of rendering it a not so subtle propaganda machine for one side in this conflict? NOTE TO REUTERS CUSTOMERS: May I point out that was a rhetorical question, since you do not seem to be very quick on the uptake?
I believe you're being summoned at post #179.
"believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear" is now "none of what you see, none of what you hear".
I am really shocked, shocked that I was so gullible to think that pic might be real.
Explodng pick up trucks on date line, Real but fake documents by Dan Rather, you think I would have learned!
Call Peter Jackson.
Reuters has NO credibility.
LOL!!
I thought the series of dead children was strange. I don't know how to go back and see those pictures again. But one was of a person placing a dead child in a mass grave. All the other corpses were completely covered, I forget if they were in coffins or completely wrapped. But the guy had the baby in a regular blanket with it's face exposed. I was wondering why are they burying this child so differently in a loose blanket with the face uncovered.
Unbeliveable. Even the most rabid liberals infected with BDS know they cannot send death threats from their work email address...:)
It is things like this that give me encouragement that we will defeat these idiots when we come to total and open war, as I feel that we eventually will be forced to do.
Absolutely. She went where the money and fame were, and was a pariah after the war ended. Justifiably. You can't serve as a handmaiden to evil and then say you were just a handmaiden.
It's a pity she didn't flee the Reich, or even remain apolitical, instead of serving it so well and enthusiastically; she was an incredibly talented filmmaker and photographer.
Even Triumph of the Will is a beautifully shot and executed film, to the degree that you can separate its technical and aesthetic merit from its glorification of evil. That's not easy to do even a little bit, and I don't think it's possible to do completely.
Her work after the war also showed great talent and skill, but the world wasn't inclined to forgive or forget. Reasonably so. If she'd used her talents to document the Holocaust after the war ended, that would have been a suitable form of atonement.
bump
Great job, all of you who participated!
How many times do MSM news organizations need to get busted for "fake but accurate"? And if there is really no liberal bias, which they all say, why is it their fakery is ALWAYS lefty slanted?
You may very well be right. However, it doesn't change the fact that the overlay shown in my post was doctored. I guess without the original photo(s) we can't say for certain regarding anything else about the photos.
But the doctored photo doesn't make Beirut look any more wasted than the original. That's my point. I understand propaganda. I know how it works, and how it can be abrupt or subtle. This case is neither. It's just stupid.
You can bet your sweet @$$ that they have been doing things like this forever and are just now getting caught. Repeatedly.
The fraudulent photo is darker, more sinister, and makes the devastation look more immediate and complete.
Exactly! That's kinda the whole point, isn't it? This goes from a sort of euphoric gotcha to a real ugly reality: How many times have they got us?
And, while in general I feel pretty Reuter Proof -- They lost me way back in the day when they refused to use the word terrorist -- the lesson is clear: Every photo is fake until proven accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.