[TomB]

The reporter broke a rule and should be fired.

But is the picture somehow dishonest? It seems to me he altered it to look better, not tell a different story. IOW, he was more interested in getting it published and maybe get some notice, not create negative attitudes toward the war.

[mabelkitty]

No. In the original, the gun and hand were lowered when the soldier spotted the man with the child.

This is blatant anti-troop propaganda.

[jiggyboy]

Nope, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this is the most clearly-definable and therefore best place, otherwise you go straight to the modern American model of a whole quasi-judicial Oprah-like process where a hundred opinions and "feelings" all carry the same weight.

[ExpatCanuck]

But is the picture somehow dishonest?

You have got to be kidding. I've seen all 3 pictures (the 2 originals and the final copy) and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.

The left is eating itself alive over reports that not only are our troops going to extremes to limit civilian casualties, indeed suffering casualties because of it, but that the Iraqis are becoming unafraid enough to actually start displaying gratitude. It completely erodes the left's position that we are an invading force and that the Iraqi people hate our guts and will fight to the last man. This reporter is a piece of sh*t lefty that thinks there is nothing wrong with altering the truth to support the 'correct' viewpoint. He is probably an elitist snob who thinks he was doing a great service to the stupid, ordinary people who read the paper and don't have his wisdom to see things as they truly are.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I've been spending some time lurking at DU over the course of this war, and with a few exceptions, it has become a refuge for the most pathetic group of closed minded wack jobs that must exist on the planet. The most pathetic part is their fundamental belief that they represent mainstream thinking in America, and they view themselves as 'crusaders' (they'll hate that word) who must enlighten the unwashed masses. There will be many comments over there supporting this reporter as a hero.

[Ciexyz]

But is the picture somehow dishonest?

Sure is. The doctored photo shows the gun pointing at the civilians -- making the soldier appear to be threatening them.

This propaganda is similar to what CNN was showing last weekend: a soldier aiming a rifle around a corner of a building, with an Arab woman walking nearby. The implication was, the soldier was aiming at a civilian, or was aiming and didn't care if a civilian was approaching.

I'm sure the truth was, the soldier was rounding the corner and sticking the gun out first for protection. Isn't that standard policy?