Photo Fakery In Lebanon

wxwax

There doesn't seem to be any other way to say it: some of the images coming from Lebanon appear to be carefully manipulated for maximum propaganda effect.

We're not going to let this thread dissolve into a political debate. Let's get that straight. OK? :cool

As a photography website, I think it's important that we realize how powerful imagery is in sending a message. And also, how easily images can be manipulated for propaganda. Frankly, in some of the examples I'm going to show you, the photographer is clearly an accomplice. There's no other possible explanation.

It's also obvious that photo editors are being caught with their pants not only down, but entirely off and hanging from a tree somewhere. Their bare asses are being shown to the world.

Lastly, I'm going to post the actual photographs themselves. Ordinarily I would not do so, because it would be a copyright violation. But in this instance, we're doing a commentary, which is covered by the Fair Use doctrine.

wxwax

The most famous example of a faked photogrpah is the one Reuters withdrew. Initially they only pulled one image supplied by freelance photographer Adnan Hajj.

Here's the before:




And here's the obviously manipulated after. The crude cloning is immediately obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of Photoshop.




As it turns out, this was only the beginning. Reuters eventually pulled all of Adnan Hajj's photos, after more evidence of fakery, which Hajj denies. In one, flares appear to have been added to a shot of an Israeli aircraft. In another, a suspiciously clean baby was "found" at a bomb site.

wxwax

Next example is equally blatant.

This time, it's the New York Times that's embarassed itself. I'm going to link to some images that took a while to loaod on my machine, and I have cable, so be prepared for a wait.

In this case, here's the attention-getting shot. Notice the "dead" man. Notice how clean he is. Notice that he glistens with sweat. Notice what he's wearing, ragged jean shorts.









Amazingly, the New York Times' vaunted photo editors somehow failed to noticed that in their same slideshow, this "dead" man was climbing through the rubble of a building that was reportedly bombed.

Here he is in the foreground of the image, pointing.







And here he is in the right background, apparently full of life and not a scratch on him.







And finally, here he is helping to dig through the rubble.







Words fail me.

wxwax

At least the other examples don't contain fake corpses.

This blog has assembled a series of photos all of which have one thing on common: a child's toy placed in the foreground, with battle damage in the background.

Normally, this wouldn't arouse suspicion. Until you notice how much dust and dirt is around. And stop to consider how dirty would be a toy that's been ejected from a bombed building. Only then do you realize that there's some fakery taking place.



Sharif Karim, Reuters




Sharif Karim, Reuters



Issam Kobeisi, Reuters

wxwax

So far, the issue of photo fakery from Lebanon hasn't been getting much media attention in the United States. The original Photoshopped Adnan Hajj image got a little air time, but not much.

I'm curious to see if our print media, who are famous navel gazers, will begin to realize that they're being duped.

Wire services are another matter. Given how long it took Reuters to respond to the blatant Photoshopping of Hajj's image, one wonders if they'll circle the wagons rather than admit there's a problem.

Regardless, this has been a very instructive development. I think it teaches us to treat all news imagery with a healthy skepticism. And I'm speaking as someone who's worked the TV side of news for quite a few years.

wxwax

Yet more evidence of fakery.

Both the US News and World Report, and Time magazine, are duped by what appears to be a faked photograph consisting of a weapon bearing man posing in front of a garbage dump fire.

Link here.

Richard

wxwax wrote:

I'm curious to see if our print media, who are famous navel gazers, will begin to realize that they're being duped.

I don't know about the photo editors, but Don Asmussen (Bad Reporter) has figured it out.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Next example is equally blatant.

Pics aren't showing up.

ChrisJ

Since I've started seriously editing my pictures, I've come to realize that *anything* is possible. If it is done well enough, it is nearly impossible to detect unless you're an expert.

Modern news is about shock value. People eat it up. So there is always going to be pressure to tweak it just a bit more for great effect.

Anyone remember the Stephen King book/Ahh-nold movie "Running Man?"
---
David and others, if you go to This Link [michellemalkin.com], it has the pics...

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

Pics aren't showing up.

Thanks. Fixed.

claudermilk

Glad to hear I'm not the only one riding on this train of thought. The propaganda angle was my first impression when seeing Hajj's shot. I was not aware of the others, and the toy ones are just as blatant--even though the digital image wasn't manipulated, the scene and viewer sure are.

To be prefectly honest, with all the hyperbole flying around on those conflicts I'm not really surprised either. This all gets down to the fact that you have to take a moment and actually think about what they're showing you and what their motives are for doing so before drawing conclusions--we all know from long experience the press is not a neutral observer and has their own agenda.

wxwax

I think it's more a matter of news organizations being at the mercy of whichever photographers can get safe access to the locations. Naturally, you'd expect locals to be granted more access than foreigners. So it's not surprising that they'll inadvertantly hire freelance shooters who aren't impartial.

What bothers me is the naivete, inattention, sloppiness or unprofessionalism of the photo editors. It's crazy that bloggers should be catching this, instead of the people who are paid to do so. The Reuters and NY Times examples are simply inexcusable.

Pezpix

Political agenda notwithstanding, the credibility factor of these news organizations need to be held to a high standard at all times, regardless of the messages the photos express.

To see and hear that some photographers are that desperate for that perfect shot is unethical, immoral and a disgrace to our profession. What is more embarassing is the obvious intent of some of these images and how they are trying to portray the damage. What amazed me, is seeing the amount of destruction in these types of images, one wonders how these photographers couldnt find real content to display.

All in all, a pretty disgusting and vile trend in our photomedia.

wxwax

I don't for a minute believe there's any complicity by the U.S. media outlets.

I think they're failing to do their jobs at policing the images they purchase for publication. And yes, it hurts their credibility, as it should.

As I said before, it's pretty obvious there are photogs on the ground in Lebanon who have access and an agenda and who have, so far, successfully hoodwinked major news organizations.

Seefutlung

In regards to the Photo Shopped Reuters Photos -

I would have fired him twice ...
1) for altering an image beyond an accurate representation; and
2) for doing such an obivious job of altering an image.

All news agencies must have complete trust in their employees (reporters and photogs). Typically, one starts at the lowest level working for a small media outlet in a small market ... then works their way up to major market media and wire services. This has a self-policing effect of weeding out the bad apples ... but some get through and some good apples change over time, but over all it has been pretty effective.

I can see many international media organizations circumventing the usual hiring practices due to 1) convenience; 2) what is typical in the west just doesn't exist in other places; 3) political correctness and sensitivity to the region.

Having been a press photog ... gotta tell you that heads are rolling and everything is upside down at Reuters looking for more/any problems. Right off the top ... No more Freelance photos or possibly RAW Only photos (another point for RAW ... I am surprised that this wasn't the case already). Even then it is hard to separate real from staged photos ... so probably staff photos only.

Not only is this happening at Reuters, but I guarantee that "Reuters" was the first topic of discussion at all the other media firms in the Middle East with a renewed look at all that can be done to assure accuracy.

This isn't just a Middle East problem ... happens at the NY Times, Washington Post, et cetera with US reporters on US soil.

Studies from the Vietnam "Conflict", reflected that the picture made a greater and longer lasting impact than the written. We still remember the ARVN General shooting the VC suspect in Saigon and the naked children running down a muddy road with the village burning in the background ... who remembers what was written...

Gary

PS- WXWAX you're on the mark that the editors are not doing their jobs. Although, this has very little bearing on the matter of letting altered and faked images into the news stream ... but I remember the intense competition between the major news organizations in Vietnam to "scoop" the agencies on a story. The competition was so extreme that some editors in New York and Saigon kept score on which news group landed which story first.

For the military, war should not be about body counts (although we must not dismiss or ever forget the fallen) ... for the media war is not about scooping your rivals (while there is pleasure in getting the story first).

-G-

marlof

On a related matter, where people want to publish their version of the truth, see the article at Wired of today, in which they explained why they pulled stories by a writer who had faked info. His reasoning why he did that is also mentioned, and Wired responded with retraction, since the source could not be verified. Not the same impact, but still it seems that "I Can't Believe The News Today", as Bono sings.

Mike Lane

wxwax wrote:

Yet more evidence of fakery.

Both the US News and World Report, and Time magazine, are duped by what appears to be a faked photograph consisting of a weapon bearing man posing in front of a garbage dump fire.

Link here.

Oh god, anyone but michelle rageaholic malkin. :puke

Mike Lane

Another view on photo fakery...

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/08/where-theres-smoke.html

marlinspike

I'm not conviced that the person digging is the same as the dead person, but as far as the other stuff...well propoganda has been going on in everything everywhere. Remember those Middle Eastern people dancing in the streets supposedly after 1911 happened (EDIT: whoops, I meant 9/11...been going to the shooting range too much I guess, so I have 1911 on the brain). Well, the people at NPR did some looking, turned out there were two sets of footage being used. One set was people greeting American soldiers in Kuwait back when Saddam had invaded Kuwait (after getting tacit American consent...whoops), and in the other set the people didn't know what the footage was for, but were told they would be given money and food if they let themselves be videotaped while dancing and waving flags.
Everybody does it, so you can't really stop it because nobody wants to be put at the disadvantage of being the only one without propoganda.

Mike Lane

marlinspike wrote:

I'm not conviced that the person digging is the same as the dead person, but as far as the other stuff...well propoganda has been going on in everything everywhere. Remember those Middle Eastern people dancing in the streets supposedly after 1911 happened. Well, the people at NPR did some looking, turned out there were two sets of footage being used. One set was people greeting American soldiers in Kuwait back when Saddam had invaded Kuwait (after getting tacit American consent...whoops), and in the other set the people didn't know what the footage was for, but were told they would be given money and food if they let themselves be videotaped while dancing and waving flags.
Everybody does it, so you can't really stop it because nobody wants to be put at the disadvantage of being the only one without propoganda.

Man, you'd think Michelle Malkin would be all over that one

marlinspike

Mike Lane wrote:

Man, you'd think Michelle Malkin would be all over that one

You're expecting a biased reporter of mediocre credentials to be thorough? Or, you're expecting an internet blogger to be thorough...or well informed...or have a knowledge of events that happened as far back as 2001?
Oh, hahaha I saw you're post where you called her rageaholic...so I guess you weren't expecting those things.

Onrey

Michelle Malkin is DA BOMB, we need more like her. I enjoy her interviews.

Mike Lane

Da bomb.

mercphoto

wxwax wrote:

I think they're failing to do their jobs at policing the images they purchase for publication. And yes, it hurts their credibility, as it should.

I have very little respect for American media. And its not just that bias thing. I just think very few of them do a good job at all. And part of the problem is that whole buying of images. The news agencies do not have enough feet on the ground in foreign places. Therefore they have to buy their news from local sources. And who knows how neutral or how biased they are. I highly suggest reading "Bad News" by Tom Fenton.

Are these photos being faked? You bet. Is that bad for the media? Oh yeah. Is it bad for us? You better believe it. The media is failing us and this is a big problem.

Sam

Sid,

Thanks for a very informative, and well thought out post.

Sam

wxwax

Sam wrote:

Sid,

Thanks for a very informative, and well thought out post.

Sam

Thanks, Sam!