« Postoperative Fidel | Main | Toys in Sidney Blumenthal's Attic »

August 6, 2006

Al-Reuters Admits to Photoshopping Anti-Israel Propaganda


Reuters has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. This dhimmi propaganda service has withdrawn a photograph of smoke rising from Beirut following an Israeli air strike after bloggers observed that it had been deliberately faked to make the smoke heavier.

As Reuters confessed:

[P]hoto editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Here's reality:


Here's Reuters' politically correct alternative:


Photoshop's clone tool was employed — duplicating not only smoke but also buildings, as documented at Little Green Footballs, where it is also pointed out that the photographer who took the photo is the same Adnan Hajj who took this priceless and very possibly staged propaganda pic at Qana:


Unfortunately, al-Reuters still hasn't confessed that the Islamic terrorists for whom it carries water really are terrorists, not "freedom fighters."

In related news, a Reuters employee is in hot water for telling Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs:

I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut.

As Johnson observed:

I think it's more than fair to say that Reuters has a big problem.

So do those relying on Reuters and the rest of the liberal media for their news.

Posted by Van Helsing at August 6, 2006 11:31 AM


So, which is it? Did Reuter's doctor the photo as your post suggets or was it Hajj? They are two entirely different things.

Hajj is a freelance photographer.

Reuters is a news service.

My educated guess as someone who works in the biz:

Reuters got a series of photographs of the smoke and citiscape. Either all of them from Hajj or from additional photographers.

Everything is done over the internet these days-digital photos and scans- and it is just comomon practice to send anywhere from 100 to 1000 pictures. (FTP transfer)

An editor then looks at the pictures and approves or disapproves based on that outlets guides.

It appears to me that Hajj or someone else was able to slip the photoshopped picture into the mix. Considering the news immediateness of this story, the PSing was shoddy and done very quickly.

Not all photographers do there own sending of photos either. It's totally common to take your picture discs and hand them off to someone else.

Not that this will ever come out, but I'd say that is what happneded here.

It's just not possible to PS a picture at Reuters or any other photo outlet without major oversight. The access to photoshop and the pics is strickly controlled. It is used to lighten and darken. That is it. Controls for clone tools don't exist.

And, why would an established photog like Hajj PS a photo? He would not. Especially as badly as this. If caught, it would end his carreer.

And, based on what I know about Reuaters, the same applies. It is pretty clear that a doctored photo got through the "filters". (Keep in mind, the people who have to sit day in and day out and look at literally thousands of pictures are all in their twenties, paid crap wages and looking to move up the ladder and become editors. Editors don't have to go through the mass of pics. Traineees do that.)

So, slipping a PS'ed pic into the mix is not that hard.

As usual, in the rush to be first, the editors at Reuters released a series of pics without vetting them preoperly. The pic in questiuon is pretty obviously photoshopped. It should have been picked out. But it was not.

Fault them for that. Because, the possibilities of how this went down point towards a mistake, not blatant abuse.

Someone slipped the photoshopped pic into the mix. My guess is it came from outside Reuters and it was simply overlooked.

Posted by: Camera A at August 6, 2006 3:20 PM

To be clear, when I say that the possiblities point towards a mistake, not blatant abuse, I mean on the part of Reuters. Obvioiusly, somoene is manipulating photos with photoshop. The question is who?

As I've said, this type of bad PSing is pretty clearly on the fly. And, it is just not possible to do something like this at Reuters. Access to PS and to the photos is stricly controlled. Literally four people. And, the obscene remarks made to Chahrles Johnson by someone at Reuters via email, moronic as they are, don't indicate much more to me than a reaction to LGF itself. Assuming guilt based upon someones hatred of LGF is silly and not wise.

Most likely scenario: Hajj took somewhere between 300 and 500 photos, and then handed off the disc to someone to upload to Reuters. I'd say that person or someone else made the changes in PS prior to the upload. Then sent the pics.

Each photographer included binary data on their pictures. A log is created. So, it is possible to know when the picture in question was taken and when it was altered.

Often, in a fast news cycle such as the Lebanon story, pictures will be approved at Reuters as a series. (This is also true at the other servies, such as Getty.)

But, the time from getting the pics to sending them to the wire can be literally minutes. That is how fast it happens. It is not uncommon for pictures to be going out during the upload itself!

So, that's likely why such a bad pic went out over the wire, and no one caught it.

It goes without saying that no one at Reuters is going to risk their job for such a crappy PS job, even if they could do it. That's why they apologized so quickly. All they had to do was look at the original pic, and the data, and see that it was altered. They'd also know which computer and which PS station did the alteration.

Posted by: Camera A at August 6, 2006 3:43 PM

Gee, Camera A, isn't it a funny coincidence that whenever the newsmedia suffers a "lapse in judgment" because of "the rush to be first," it's always for a story or a photo that benefits the left?

No one in the MSM seemed to be "in the rush to be first" when it came to Juanita Broaddrick or Monica Lewinsky, but when it came to the Bush TANG memos...

Posted by: V the K at August 6, 2006 4:47 PM

Give Reuters some time to regroup. In a week or so they will say the picture itself doesn't matter, for They Are Reuters.

It took Rather several days to think up 'fake but accurate'.

Posted by: K at August 6, 2006 8:17 PM

What does Lewinsky have to do with the photos at hand? Amazing jump in logic. But, it fits your view I suppose. But, I'll play your game...

No one in the MSM seemed to be "in the rush to be first" when it came to Juanita Broaddrick or Monica Lewinsky, but when it came to the Bush TANG memos...>/i>

Sure. Maybe that was because there were no photos of Lewinsky blowing Clinton, or Broaddrick
getting raped by Clinton. Your analogy is weak at best. And, of course, the TANG memos were readily available as images...

So, your point is....???? That no one in the MSM rushed to print the pictures (that didnt' exist) of Clinton with Lewinsky and Broaddrick?


Posted by: Camera A at August 6, 2006 11:41 PM

Wow, talk about obtuse.

The point isn't pictures, CA, the point is that the media are rushing to find anything they can to pin on Israel, Bush and the rest without caring whether it's actually true, yet they were very reluctant to cover theBroaddrick story. They loved the lewinsky story, but even then they played it as something a lot less serious than it actually was and tried to bury it quickly. They went through the motions. Can you imagine how they would have been if it had been a republican president caught in the act?

And there's the point, my friend. The media rushes to bring out anything they can when Israel or the right are involved, but they bury bad news for the other side.

Posted by: Archonix at August 7, 2006 5:02 AM

The media rushes to bring out anything they can when Israel or the right are involved, but they bury bad news for the other side.

Thanks for getting it, Archonix.

The truth is, the media have two story tracks. If something hurts Bush, Israel, or the right the story is fast-tracked, like this fake picture or the fake Texas TANG memos. If a story hurts a Democrat or the left, it is slow-tracked or buried, like Juanita Broaddrick, the SVFT, or any good news coming out of Iraq.

Posted by: V the K at August 7, 2006 5:30 AM

So, your point is....???? That no one in the MSM rushed to print the pictures (that didnt' exist) of Clinton with Lewinsky and Broaddrick?

OK, let's try this, then:

There were no pictures of Gore votes in Florida on election night of 2000, yet the MSM was in a bigger hurry than Michael Moore heading to a Chinese buffet (ten minutes before closing time) to report that Gore had won FL.

There...better analogy for your liking, or are you just going to refuse to get it anyway?

Posted by: Jonathan L. at August 7, 2006 12:04 PM

Hm, seems now a second falsified Reuters/Hajj photo has emerged, and several more appear to have been staged, and there also seems to be a case where two Reuters photos of the same attack has been used twice and captioned twice to imply it was two separate attacks.

Strangely, all of these "innocent mistakes" by Reuters seem to err on the side of making the Israelis look bad.

Now, how could that be?

Posted by: V the K at August 7, 2006 12:35 PM

Reich wing Christonazi!


Racist homophobe!

(where's my tin foil hat?)

Chimplerian McHitlerburton!

9-11 was a BushMcCheneyBurton Cabal conspiracy!

(drool--where's my Haldol pill?)

Posted by: Camera A-hole at August 7, 2006 9:54 PM