August 29, 2006
It may seem trivial, but in war the editorial nature of pictures can win allies or make enemies out of friends. This is why pictures matter, and why the context in which they are taken must always be known in order for an accurate assessment of events to be made.
Okay, so Allah has this lengthy post about what possibly could have caused the mysterious damage to the Reuters van allegedly hit by an Israeli "missile" in Gaza. And Ace second's the motion here.
The gist of the argument (as I read it) is as Ace puts it The Israelis admit firing on the vehicle.
But I'm not sure that what I, or the others (eg, here, here, here & here), are saying is that the Israelis didn't fire on the vehicle. What we are saying is that what is being reported in the press is not what actually happened. We are not saying (I don't think) that nothing happened, only that the incident probably did not go down as described by Palestinian stringers employed by Reuters.
For instance, Reuters says:
The missile struck the 'P' of the bright red 'PRESS' sign on the roof of the armor-plated Reuters car as Gaza cameraman Fadel Shana hurried to film an Israeli raid.But does that look like a missile entry point to you?
It certainly doesn't to me. I'm no expert, so I asked the people over at Military Photos to examine it. Some of the answers were similar to Ace's--dismissive because the Israelis claimed the hit. Others were dismissive because it is an international forum and that implies a great deal of antisemitism, but here is some of what was said.
Just from the photo's posted, to me, it does not look like rust or burnt flaking paint on the roof of the car, it looks like dirt to me. My guess is that it was hit by a rather large rock or bolder or building material that impacted / punctured the roof and left a crap load of dirt / debris everywhere.Which pretty much meshes with my own theory of the roof damage The damage seems much more consistent with a cinder block falling on the truck, than with a missile.
One might argue that, in the end, it doesn't matter whether a block or brick fell on the roof since it was probably the missile itself which caused the block to fall, perhaps off a nearby building. In other words, so the press got it wrong on the specifics, but it was still Israel that caused the damage.
But that misses the larger point being made about the incident in the press--the editorial point.
Claiming a missile came through the roof of the car at the "p" in "press" drives home the point that the Israelis must have known they were firing at a press vehicle--it was clearly marked.
And that is exactly how Reuters--and the AP--spins the photos. The photos are presented in the context of competing claims. The Israelis claim they didn't know it was a press vehicle, but:
The car was labeled on all sides as a press vehicle.And the picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it?
The missile hitting the car at the "P" is all that is needed to back claims made by Palestinians and their allies in the press that the Israelis are targetting journalists. Simply looking at the photo, as many un-savvy un-bloggerish consumers of the media would do, might lead to the conclusion that the Israelis must be lying. That there is no way they could not have known the vehicle was the press.
Forget that it was hit at night and that targetting cameras would probably not pick up the markings on the vehicle--most readers simply do not not pay that much attention to detail.
The picture tells the only story most will ever read.
But if that hole was made only incidentally to the missile strike--if it was caused by falling debris--than it changes the entire editorial context of the photo.
There are important implications to this story. Ones which, I hope by now, we are all familiar with.
The story is being used as part of a concerted propaganda effort against Israel. True or not, that is how it is being used.
Here is a Palestinian press release (emphasis mine):
CPJ Condemns Targeting 2 Cameramen by Israeli Forces in Gaza...See how this all works?The Foreign Press Association (FPA) in Israel called the attack an "outrageous targeting" and demanded a full investigation.
Other allegations of deliberate targeting of journalists covering fighting in Gaza and south Lebanon have been made against the Israeli army over the past two months.
As Caroline Glick puts it in her JPOST column today about the incident:
Yet it is unclear why anyone should believe either Shana or Reuters. Shana told Reuters that as he was driving to the battle scene, "I suddenly saw fire and the doors of the jeep flew open." He claims to have been wounded by shrapnel in his hand and leg. These are minor injuries for someone whose vehicle was just hit by a missile.Indeed. The only witnesses to the missile attack were a Palestinian Reuters stringer, a Palestinian who works at an "Arab website" (the two victims), and 3 "witnesses". Given the history of Reuters stringers, experience with Arab websites, and especially given that the witnesses may be the very "militants" that the IDF was really after, we should be more than caustious but, in fact, suspicious about any claims made.It is not a coincidence that I saw the pictures of the Reuters' vehicle on Powerline and not in the media coverage of the purported attack. Both the global media and the international NGO community abjectly refuse to investigate themselves. As democratic governments and their militaries have proven incapable of dealing with the phenomenon (in part because they seek to curry favor with the media and the international NGO community), the blogosphere has taken upon itself the role of media watchdog...
As each day passes, the governments, formal and informal legal apparatuses, and media of free societies show themselves to be less and less capable of contending with the information operations conducted against their societies by subversive forces seeking their destruction.
No, it's not that nothing happened, it's just that it probably didn't go down the way the Palestinians--and Reuters--claim it did.
Last, let me reiterate a point that Confederate Yankee makes. Even if we are wrong on this one--that the incident happened exactly as described by Reuters--it really doesn't matter. After all, should the blogosphere stop questioning the mainstream press simply because we might be wrong, then our purpose is over. Done. Nothing left for us to do.
Because if we don't question the press then who will?
UPDATE: Shrapnel vs. a missile, does it matter? Absolutely. Via SeeDub, who now owns Junkyard blog, this:
Shrapnel from two missiles struck two cars including a Reuters’ vehicle.And I would respond to Allah's question to me this way: YES! DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING THE PALIS, THE HEZBOS, STRINGERS WITH LOCAL LOYALTIES, OR MEDIA WHICH COOPERATE WITH THEM SAY, DO, OR PHOTOGRAPHIC. NOTHING.Palestinian security sources and eyewitnesses said that several Israeli army tanks and armoured vehicles rolled into eastern Gaza City, backed by Israeli helicopters and reconnaissance drones.
The eyewitnesses said that the two camera operators were in a Reuters jeep heading to the area to cover the Israeli Army incursion into eastern Gaza City. They said that an Israeli helicopter fired two missiles at people gathering in the Sheja’eya neighbourhood in eastern Gaza City as the Reuters’ car drove past nearby.
Shrapnel hit the car, wounding Faddel Shana’a of Reuters and Sabah Hemeida, who works for Dubai Television.
That's not quite fair. The real question was about calling shenanigans on photos of vehicles that aren't all the way destroyed. And to answer that reasonable and fair question, I would agree with Allah. You can't call shenanigans on everything.
I do, however, call shenanigans here. Now. In this instance. Not because it was a vehicle, but because it was a media vehicle. Not because nothing happened, but because the photos (IMO) are being used to make propaganda points.
Here's another interesting question. Is there a way to avoid what Ace calls the meme-mentality, yet still be able to raise questions? There must be some happy medium between calling everything shenanigans and saying nothing out of fear of being labeled paranoid.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:17 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1468 words, total size 10 kb.
Posted by: See-Dubya at August 29, 2006 04:46 PM (UodmQ)
Posted by: QC at August 29, 2006 05:14 PM (PX+vn)
Semantics never fooled my father (just ask my butt). Why does word play so easily fool the MSM?
And while we're talking about fools, how 'bout the welcome the Hezbos choreographed for Supreme Leader Kofi.
Bet Mr. Annan finds a new travel agent!
Posted by: KobeClan at August 29, 2006 05:44 PM (qXyAN)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 29, 2006 05:56 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Jihad Rusty Dirka Dirka at August 29, 2006 06:05 PM (JQjhA)
I read this in my local home town online newspaper:
"From May 2004 to April this year 650 non-UK nationals in [removed] registered for National Insurance numbers necessary for them to gain employment.
The influx was mainly due to the enlargement of the EU in May 2004 when eight former Communist states, including Poland and Lithuania, joined.
They have been credited with filling jobs that local people did not want but many are concerned that not enough jobs are now available to cope with a similar influx of people from Romania and Bulgaria.
...and you thought only the U.S needed immigrants to do the scut work!? Socialism is awesome, import more foreign workers to do the jobs -- while a significant portion of the populus draw a dole check.
Posted by: davec at August 29, 2006 06:09 PM (QkWqQ)
Nice post, and I concur with all of it.
Posted by: Pablo at August 29, 2006 06:28 PM (EErm0)
Propaganda is a weapon of war.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 29, 2006 06:28 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 29, 2006 06:36 PM (rUyw4)
Why should we now trust "news" coming out of Lebanon? We know that Hizb'Allah is waging a propoganda war, and that much of the MSM is either complicit or duped; calling everything "shenanigans" is not paranoid; it's the result of the learning curve.
In my opinion, everything coming out of Reuters and Lebanon should be assumed to be "shenanigans" unless proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on them.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at August 29, 2006 06:37 PM (JaJsZ)
The self vaporizing hellfire with optional mud warhead?
/sarcasm off
I really wish they would give us some nice photo's of the hole in the dash so we could try and figure out what hit it... You know, like direction, angle, speed, size, missile parts, etc... You know what I'm talking about, actual facts, something they are sorely lacking of these days.
Perhaps it was debris flying from the vehicle that was actually attacked, which made them wreck and smash up the hood?
How many vehicles have they shown us in the last 15 years which really were hit by missiles?
We've seen Strykers, Hummers, civilian vehicles, trucks, armored trucks, etc.... Thousands and thousands of pictures they feed us of these airstrikes. The MSM made us experts at recognizing vehicles hit by missiles, from the Highway of Death as the Iraqi Army left Kuwait to missile strikes in Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc... during the WOT.
Do they really think us so stupid to believe a missile hit that truck? They are the ones who gave us this education as they told us how sorry we should be for the innocent civilians killed, who were sitting beside terrorists who killed hundreds. It's funny how these same people laud WW2 where we indiscriminately bombed civilian populations on purpose, because we were at war and didn't want to lose. Winston Churchill decided to knowingly take a German mistake when they bombed London, to start a city bombing campaign with Germany to take the pressure off the RAF. How many Japanese and American lives were saved by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who would have otherwise died in the invasion? Can anyone remind me the last war that had a good ending? What lessons can we learn from this? So a few civilian "friends" of terrorists die, better than hundreds of civilians in terror attacks....
It's really no surprise though, they need the drama to sell newspapers, and most of this planet has proven over and over they do not have the time or care to study what the MSM feeds us as undeniable fact.
Does it ever occur to these MSM editors that the people they hire are locals who are trying to frame whatever their agenda is in the best light they can? Emphasis on agenda...
Posted by: Naieve at August 29, 2006 06:40 PM (+PWjE)
Posted by: Tbone at August 29, 2006 06:52 PM (E4STH)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 29, 2006 07:11 PM (n4VvM)
No. It's looks like some paleo car swarmer dropped a cinder block on them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 29, 2006 07:58 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 29, 2006 08:31 PM (n4VvM)
/sarcasm off
Posted by: Naieve at August 29, 2006 09:39 PM (+PWjE)
Posted by: sandpiper at August 29, 2006 10:25 PM (4v/PL)
Posted by: moriarti at August 29, 2006 10:32 PM (blfs0)
Posted by: moriarti at August 29, 2006 10:33 PM (blfs0)
Posted by: moriarti at August 29, 2006 10:33 PM (blfs0)
So, to summarize, you're not an expert, you didn't really get any decent information to back up your claims from an expert, and it doesn't really matter if you're wrong so long as you keep saying it.
Wow.
That's quite a mission: To say, you know, stuff, regardless of truth.
So you're all the media watchdogs, then eh?
And yet, while you admit to not knowing anything about the accuracy of the report, you find that you have some sort of obligation to question its accuracy, without any sort of reasoning to do so other than that it quotes people you don't like and makes those you support look bad. That's enough?
Why are you not holding yourselves to the standards you supposedly hold those you critique?
I think I'll continue to go with what the people at the scene are saying. You just tighten those blinders and keep seeing what you want to see. You have the luxury too. It's really easy from a distance, like while looking at a computer screen thousands of miles away from what you're talking about.
Posted by: afl at August 30, 2006 04:14 AM (NnDq/)
The report from the Bangkok Post say Eyewitnesses saw an attack on Palestinean Militants into which the Reuters van got too close.
Or perhaps you still believe they deliberatley aimed at the "P in Press"...
No one here unequivicolly said the vehicle wasn't hit by the Israeli's, we said that vehicle WAS NOT THE TARGET.
So please, listen to the "Arab Reuters Stringers" who we all know would "never lie"...
Oh wait, their stories are being conflicted by eyewitnesses? Hmm, why oh why would we question them?
Posted by: Naieve at August 30, 2006 03:49 PM (+PWjE)
If people will spend the time to review photos during the past years, more faux photography and staged photo ops will emerge
For example, one of my pet peeves happened during the Tsunami crises. Examine the Indonesian and Asian news photos of the US military rescue efforts during the Tsunami tragedy. I spent a week looking them over, and was astonished at the apparent anti-US, Australian, and British bias shown in Asian media sources such as the Asian Times. Americans saw many wonderful photos of our outreach, but they were never shown in Asian newspapers and online media.
I found photos with the following themes:
Photos of navy rescue landings combined with captions that implied a US invasion not our rescue efforts. You have to see these photos to understand. The focus is on fearful military aspects, with no victims or tsunami damage included in the photos.
Photos of British and Aussie soldiers standing around and goofing off out of uniform; implying they weren't actually helping victims but laying around being useless..
The majority of photos showing supplies and aid being given to tsunami victims implied that Indonesian officials were the source. Few photos ever showed Americans, Brits or Aussies distributing relief supplies. The few photos showing non-Indonesian doctors and relief workers were of French or EU workers.
Although, many tsunami survivors knew the US provided much of the major rescue effort, thanks to an obvious Asian media slant, the other readers of Asian media would have never guessed the role the USA played in saving lives.
Mirra
btw You were right about Jill Carroll. Thanks for the head up
Posted by: Mirra at August 30, 2006 08:17 PM (LQOJL)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 31, 2006 07:12 AM (rUyw4)
Posted by: sandpiper at September 04, 2006 09:10 AM (AFJdY)
I had a friend in the USMC who trained Marines in the use of TOW missiles (not much different Hellfire missiles in effect. In one weapon demonstration the turret of an M48 tank was ripped free from the hull.
Marines my friend had trained attacked an armored convoy during Desert Storm, and started knocking out a tank per missile, and the Iraqi commander said later they thought they were under air attack, because the didn't know where the missiles were coming from.
Once, a TOW missile had the warhead removed so it could be live fired at a tank during exercises. The 'demilitarized' missile struck the side of the turret causing concussion inside that disabled the crew. My friend never mentioned 'spall' or other possible damage, but that the crew for sure had been stunned, and incapacitated.
There is no way I can accept that a "missile" hit that vehicle directly. Maybe a 70mm rocket with a less lethal payload. Maybe even a 40mm grenade (I am not up to date on whether the 40mm is still used on helicopters or not)
Shrapnel makes a lot of sense. So does pieces of damaged building falling from above.
One thing that is absolutely clear is the attempted deceit. Consider Qana ....
Definitely dead babies at Qana, but the spin was all to obvious. We were being played.
LGF and JAWA and the rest of the critical bloggers need to keep the lens focused for those of us who prefer the truth. We need you! Sorry for this long post, but just don't stop what you started. They lie to us every chance, and we have had to choke it down for years because we didn't have an internet, and honest and alert people to engage the lies in this manner.
Besides ... its good practice for tearing apart Daily Kos.
USA All the way!
Posted by: Mike at September 04, 2006 09:21 PM (2OHpj)
I had a friend in the USMC who trained Marines in the use of TOW missiles (not much different Hellfire missiles in effect. In one weapon demonstration the turret of an M48 tank was ripped free from the hull.
Marines my friend had trained attacked an armored convoy during Desert Storm, and started knocking out a tank per missile, and the Iraqi commander said later they thought they were under air attack, because the didn't know where the missiles were coming from.
Once, a TOW missile had the warhead removed so it could be live fired at a tank during exercises. The 'demilitarized' missile struck the side of the turret causing concussion inside that disabled the crew. My friend never mentioned 'spall' or other possible damage, but that the crew for sure had been stunned, and incapacitated.
There is no way I can accept that a "missile" hit that vehicle directly. Maybe a 70mm rocket with a less lethal payload. Maybe even a 40mm grenade (I am not up to date on whether the 40mm is still used on helicopters or not)
Shrapnel makes a lot of sense. So does pieces of damaged building falling from above.
One thing that is absolutely clear is the attempted deceit. Consider Qana ....
Definitely dead babies at Qana, but the spin was all to obvious. We were being played.
LGF and JAWA and the rest of the critical bloggers need to keep the lens focused for those of us who prefer the truth. We need you! Sorry for this long post, but just don't stop what you started. They lie to us every chance, and we have had to choke it down for years because we didn't have an internet, and honest and alert people to engage the lies in this manner.
Besides ... its good practice for tearing apart Daily Kos.
USA All the way!
Posted by: Mike at September 04, 2006 09:27 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Mike at September 04, 2006 09:30 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Mike at September 04, 2006 09:33 PM (2OHpj)
34 queries taking 0.0348 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
