New York Times joins Reuters with fraudulent photos of it's own

War_Monger

Checking his pulse??? Exactly what time were you born today? The guy standing is holding the fake deads guys wrist with the palm of his hand. Since when do you check someones pulse with the palm of your hand?

I suppose it's too much to ask for people to use a little imagination before calling everyone and their mother a liar. Perhaps he's just checked his pulse. Perhaps he's about to check his pulse. Perhaps he's just holding his hand until the ambulance comes. Or maybe, as I said before, they're both faking it for PR value.

I DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DO YOU.

I think your explanation is blatant ignorant!

K, rock on.

Admit that there was fraud committed in the presentation of this story by the mainstream media and move on.

Really, this sounds more like a simple screwup than fraud to me.

Looking at the picture, I don't see how anyone would think that was a corpse from the bombing - people who have tons of concrete fall on them tend not to be quite that intact-looking.

And I do think that certain parties are using these photojournalism controversies to distract attention from the very real carnage in Lebanon.

"Dead Lebanese?!? What dead Lebanese?!? LOOK, LOOK, the dreaded liberal media strike again!!!"


[edit on 8/10/06 by xmotex]

I will address QuietSoul's theory now. There can be many a simple explanations for this man's positions, the least likely of which is he crawled under and posed for the camera in the aftermath of the destruction and collapse of a seven story apartment complex.

1) The sequence of the photos may be in incorrect order, and number six could be showing the moment when that man was recovered from the rubble. I do not find this very likely because he most likely would be quite a bit roughed up.
2) This man wandered into a highly unstable section of rubble, stepped on an unsecure object, caused a collapse and fell down with the rubble catching itself before he was crushed. Everything is on the ground now, so there is not much inertia forcing it upon him at great speeds, making the scenario outlined very likely.
3) The man wandered into that area as a pocket of fumes was released upon him moving rubble, he attempted to grab those pipes while they were upright in an attempt to hold himself steady, and then the pipes collapsed pinning him down after the fumes and a bump knocked him out.

The pillar does not necessarily show resting on the pipe. It appears to me mroe like the pipes fell onto the pillars sides.

Either way, I am sure it is easier to believe that these men staged the whole incident in a highly unstable environment where a multi-story building just collapsed and noxious fumes are being released as a result of fire burning chemicals and hazardous materials that were present in the building.

Honestly these men are quite brave and selfless to venture into an area like that without proper equipment and HAZMAT gear. Either that or just unfortunate enough not to have any of that available.

"Dead Lebanese?!? What dead Lebanese?!? LOOK, LOOK, the dreaded liberal media strike again!!!"

Is that the tactic reserved for use when you have nothing left to say xmotex?

Making it as though the people calling out against fraudulent captioning and photography are saying there is no destruction in Lebanon.

How many times does it have to be stated here that no one is saying that?

No matter. I type fast.

Let's do it again for emphasis shall we?

In fact, I'll even make it loud and pretty with some bb code.

NO ONE IS SAYING THERE'S NO DESTRUCTION AND DEATH IN LEBANON, HOWEVER THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT A MISREPRESENTATION OF A PHOTOGRAPH AND CAPTION IN THE MEDIA.

What else should we do, rent a plane and fly a banner?

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Djarums]

I'm curious why it's become such a focus of attention is all.

The guy retouching the smoke was clearly fraudulent, and has (justifiably) been fired for it, on the other hand this one seems more like a plain-old screwup to me. A rather minor one at that.

And I do think it's entirely intentional that the issue is being pressed in order to cast doubt on civilian casualties in Lebanon, one has only to peruse LGF and its ilk to see that this is a consciously chosen strategy, and that the indignation is at least as fake as the photos in question.

Okay, now Djarums is getting to the aggravation level I was at last night. Why is it okay that this apaprently staged photograph was presented with a false caption? Is it because it's pro-Lebanese?

The issue here is that the media is misrepresenting information to us. We shouldn't care what the topic is, we should care that the topic is being misrepresented. We should care when that happens, no matter what side of any given topic it's being done on.

That's the part that's aggravating to me....the apparent "okayness" with this that some of you have.

Originally posted by Valhall
Is it because it's pro-Lebanese?

You're no fool are you? All you have to do is look through the posting history of those who are defending the NYT to find that they are almost always pro-Lebanese/anti-Israel. It's a stupid divide that should have nothing to do with this discussion. Yet the (obviously blind) opposition wants to change the subject into "Look how many civilians are dying in Lebanon." If 1,000,000 Lebanese civilians were killed in the last 24 hrs. it wouldn't change the fact that these photos are a set-up and a scam.


How do we know that Hezbollah is launching missiles, or that Israel is retaliating? Do we all live there? No, we count on the press to bring us the information. These numbers of death that we keep hearing about are from the press. I'm trying to point out that we're not getting an honest report of what's happening there. I mean that for both sides of the fighting.

Why does this matter? When we see a news report of an atomic mushroom in Tel Aviv do we automatically nuke every adjoining country or do we question the images? You're missing the point that the press swings both ways with deception. Note that in the thread Peace, Propaganda and The Promised Land the pro-Lebanese crowd loves to point out the media bias. It seems you only believe this to be true if it sheds a bad light on Israel. I think it works both ways and suggest that the doubters wake up and realize this.

Anyway, here's another NYT fake photo to add to your collection. They had to go modify its caption too.





[edit on 8/10/06 by makeitso]

All you have to do is look through the posting history of those who are defending the NYT to find that they are almost always pro-Lebanese/anti-Israel.

All you have to do is look at the posting history of those expressing outrage over the NYT mis-captioning this photo to find out they are almost all pro-Israeli/anti-Lebanese.

So where does that get us?

[edit on 8/10/06 by xmotex]

Valhall is right.

What news source this is and what political leanings they might have is not the issue here. Media as a whole (Conservative or Liberal) should present facts as they are. It is incredibly important that captions are accurate. I wonder if the NYT would have fixed that caption had no one pointed it out to them. I wonder how many false stories and photos have gone unnoticed in the past, and how many of those false stories and photos influenced people to think one way or the other about situations in the world. The public shouldn't HAVE to point out their mistakes. They are our news source! They are solely responsible for being absolutely certain that the pictures and stories they print in their papers are accurate. If they are unsure about a photo or story, they should either postpone it's release until they have learned all the facts, or clearly state their uncertainty within the article or caption.

So they revised the caption to read something else. First they 'insinuated' that this is one of the dead men being pulled from the rubble, (you don't have to say outright "this man is one of the dead, resulting from the Israeli attack" to be called a liar. The suggestive nature of the caption is enough. Forcing your readers to 'read between the lines' or strictly observing the 'technical' truths in order to learn what's really going on is rotten, and on the level or defense lawyers who set murderers free based on technicalities/loopholes.)..... but now, suddenly they are sure this man simply collapsed during the rescue efforts? Who did they contact to find out what is truly happening in this scene? Whom did they ask the first time, and if the information comes from the same person, why has he/she decided to change the information now?

Just because a paper eventually admitts and revises their "errors" doesn't make it O.K. Now I have to question if they know anything about any of those photographs they present inside their papers. Am I going to have to take it upon myself to travel to Lebanon, take photos myself, and gather the proper information? If I have to do this to obtain the truth, why the heck would I buy their papers or watch their shows on TV? Lying, misrepresenting, or reporting on things they know nothing about defeats the very purpose of their existance! As far as I can tell, my knowledge of this conflict (if I have any) is now reduced to the very basics.

One question I have to ask myself is; why would I allow a couple of incidents to shake my faith in the media? This is not the first time I've seen media (on either side) 'shape' a story. This (and the Reuters) incident just happens to be more blatant than the others. I had little faith as it is, but this story may be the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe I'm overreacting. I don't know.

Well, the simplest answer is that all media reports need to be taken with a grain of salt, as incompetence, political agendas, and personal ambitions all play their part in coloring the news we get.

Staged photos are nothing new, I was reading an article before this whole controversy erupted about famous Civil War battlefield photos, and how many of them were staged, with photographers literally dragging bodies around and posing them to make for a more memorable shot. Another historical example is the famous photo of US Marines raising the US flag on Mt. Suribachi - it was staged by the photographer, albeit to recreate a real event.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Y'all are jumping to conclusions.

Nowhere that I see does it describe him as a dead man.

He could be faking it, yes, for PR value. Or, he could have collapsed from heat exhaustion while participating in the rescue, which would explain his friend checking his pulse.

I think my explanation is more likely, but whatever floats your boat. It would be nice if we could learn a little more about this situation before passing judgement on the man in the photo, the photographer, and the NYT.

if he collapsed then why is a pipe laying on tip of him?
did you even look at the pictures?

Originally posted by DYepes
Honestly these men are quite brave and selfless to venture into an area like that without proper equipment and HAZMAT gear. Either that or just unfortunate enough not to have any of that available.

you say brave and selfless, i say fools and vultures
they're not helping anyone, they're snapping pictures to make some money with and risking their health in the process

wondernut
Yes, I looked at the picture, for quite some time, on multiple occasions. And you're wrong, the pipe is not laying on top of him, the pipe isn't touching him at all. It's above his head, supporting itself. If he was walking to the right of it, trying to scramble up on that piece of concrete by his feet, slipped, and fell, his head would either be resting on the pipe at an awkward and uncomfortable angle, or his head would be lolling back to where you see it in the photo.

If he was still conscious after he fell, he most likely tried to make himself as comfortable as possible waiting for someone to come and help. Isn't that what you would do? I know that's what I'd do.

I'll say it one more time - it's possible the photo was staged. However, what a lot of you seem to be saying is that it's impossible that the photo depicts a rescuer who was injured. I find that ludicrous, since you don't know anything more about the situation than I do. Based on the information we have available, the man could be a fallen rescuer, or he could be an actor posing for a sympathy shot.

Stop pretending to know one way or another. Say it with me.."I don't know." It's very liberating.

wondernut, you obviously did not other to read the entirety of my explanations, but it is there clear as day for you to re-read as to how the pipes could very easily have come on top of him.

I am neither defending nor justifying any deliberate misdirection. In fact, I completely admit and condemn the caption error. However as is seen in every single one of these photos, and stated on each of the press releases, the authenticity and validity of the photos themselves is not in question. It was the caption. If I take a picture of my house and caption it with "Capitol Building" Yes that is a very deviant and misleading lie of a description. However, the photo itself is not a fake.

This is what I am debating here. dbates and others here want us to believe that whole illustration was a setup and complete farce because a Western Journalist on the other side of the globe looked through the set of photos of a hazard scene and typed up his own captions for. Dbates you are following the same road as whoever typed up that caption. You have no basis or factual claims for stating these men staged the whole disaster zone for PR value.

And well wondernut, your reference to them being vultures and fools is rather displeasing. I wonder if you would say the same about the men who bear your cities Emergency services emblem as they are attempting to rescue people you love and are close to from any misfortunes that may have befallen them.

Again for the sake of these people, the photos themselves are not in question and neither is the situation depicted in them, they were mislabeled by deviant OR uninformed editors. The mistake, whether deliberate or not, has been amended and the perp has hopefully been chastised.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
wondernut
Yes, I looked at the picture, for quite some time, on multiple occasions. And you're wrong, the pipe is not laying on top of him, the pipe isn't touching him at all. It's above his head, supporting itself. If he was walking to the right of it, trying to scramble up on that piece of concrete by his feet, slipped, and fell, his head would either be resting on the pipe at an awkward and uncomfortable angle, or his head would be lolling back to where you see it in the photo.

One thing I think you're missing is the evidence that QuietSoul pointed out on the second page of this thread. There is no space between the rock and the pole for him to have fallen into that position, and he's on the wrong side of the cables for him to have rolled in from the other side.

Look how the large piece of concrete (red) is pressed up against the pipe. He would have fallen on top of the pipe.

I still believe that the NYT wouldn't have changed the caption if there were nothing wrong with what they were saying in the first place. Those of you that say it's okay because the fixed it are missing the point. It was obviously misleading and there were no apparent fatalities despite what the caption said. I have no doubt they would have paraded the dead if there would have been any at this site.

I already pointed out that given the circumstances the people i that zone are in, there are an abundant number of ways that man could have gotten there. Like he tripped, grabbed the poles, they came tumbling and he hit his head. OR, the phots were out of sequence and this one shows the man as he is first found.

Either way, the caption was a horrible mistake. There is no reason to believe the photo was a setup though.

I've never in my life seen someone fall, trip, tumble, or otherwise injure themselves and have their hat neatly tucked under their arm... but anyways...

I'm glad that instead of bickering about political crap people are finally admitting that something definitely was NOT presented correctly by the press.

Okay dbates, I see what you're saying. But are you sure the pipe is pressed against the concrete? It looks close, but I can't tell how close.

You're right about him being on the wrong side of the cables to have fallen on the left, that makes sense.

Actually, the part that makes me most suspicious is the hat under his arm. I suppose his friend could have put it there, or he could have wedged it in there himself after he fell, but it does make you wonder...

In any case, I appreciate you taking the time to present your case without resorting to accusations of bias on my part. I'm just interested in figuring out the circumstances, I don't particularly care which side 'wins', yaknow?

Originally posted by Djarums
subz, no one has said that there is no carnage in Lebanon and it would benefit your points better if you did not invent such charges.

[...]

How you decide that means someone is saying there's no carnage in Lebanon is absolutely beyond me.

Ah it was a rhetorical question hence the question mark at the end. I never said that any one was doubting the carnage but speculated at what could be the only possible explaination for faking things that are already real.

As marg alluded to, it creates doubt on the details of what you see rather than the overall scope of devestation. The only possible reason I can see for this fakery is to sow seeds of doubt in exactly what you see coming out of Lebanon from now on.

Originally posted by Djarums
Admit that there was fraud committed in the presentation of this story by the mainstream media and move on. After all, that is the topic here, not whether there's any damage in Lebanon. No one has denied that.

I do admit there was fraud committed, I have never said other wise. In this thread or in HowardRoarks thread in the Middle East Conflict forum over on PTS. But instead of moving on shouldnt we examine who benefits from the doubt that now surrounds all images coming out portraying carnage in Lebanon? It certainly isnt the Lebanese and it's definately not those caught faking photos.