jawa.mee.nu

August 07, 2006

Reuters : Don't DARE Question Their Veracity

The MSM is all offended that we, mere bloggers, would dare question the veracity of the professionally-produced images coming from Lebanon. How terribly cheeky of us! What could we know, after all, about what's going on in Lebanon? How could we possibly evaluate the quality of the reporting in Lebanon from the air-conditioned comfort of our offices? It's tough, to be sure, but I imagine we'll keep it up. After all, I'm sure we all remember these recent classics, all of which were either staged or photoshopped events:

This didn't really happen (photoshop)...

Condi's not really a zombie (photoshop)...

[MORE BELOW]

A few more classics:

The missile that wasn't (staged)...

bogus rape.JPG

The rape that wasn't (staged)...

The torture that wasn't (staged)...

The dodge-n-burn (photoshop)...

More dodge-n-burn (photoshop)...

The magic smoke (photoshop)...

The plastic hostage (stupid)...

Posted by: Ragnar at 12:12 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "What could we know, after all, about what's going on in Lebanon?"

We migth not know much about what's happening in Lebanon; but we sure as hell have figured out how it's being reported! Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at August 07, 2006 12:26 AM (Bp6wV)

2 I think they were trying to make Condi look like a Goa'uld, not a zombie.

(...though it's possible she's Tok'ra.)

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 07, 2006 05:59 AM (MKaa5)

3 What diference would it make. If you liberal bastard posters didn't like it you would delete the truth anyway. Same as Al-Jazeera. You're no better than they.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 07, 2006 09:12 AM (NbWo9)

4 Unfortunately these aren't isolated incidents. It's been going on for years now. There's a reason why folks have lost trust in the MSM. It's not just in our heads.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 07, 2006 11:15 AM (8e/V4)

5 A friend said she had stopped watching TV news so I asked why. The answer - "I'm sick of being lied to."

Posted by: yankeewombat at August 07, 2006 11:38 AM (mi/h7)

6 At this point there is sufficient evidence to draw a reasonable inference that ALL Reuters Mideast photos are touched and/or doctored in some fashion. The burden of proof has shifted. If it's Reuters, I assume it is fake unless shown decisively otherwise.

The job now is to prove it to Wall Street.

Posted by: Careful Reader at August 07, 2006 12:19 PM (sVRPf)

7 Yeah, that's logical Careful Reader. Keep living in that pretend world.

How is Reuter's fixing the problem a bad thing?
I don't understand this.
I understand how this can be extrapolated into a "very bad thing" damning of all things journalistic. But only if you fall for that either / or garbage. Either Reuters is a group of biased terrorist sympathizers OR they are an unbiased organization who agrees with us.

I don't have time for people who think this way. It's not the world.

I'm not buying it.
I'm smarter than that.
So are most people. Many just like to play dumb.
And I'm thrilled an unethical little maggot of a photographer got canned. All his photos were ripped from the Reuters library. What more could you want?

Posted by: Temple Stark at August 07, 2006 01:25 PM (to9f3)

8 Pardon my ignorance :-/

I'm familiar with most of these pictures, but what was "the rape that wasn't" and what was the top picture supposed to be of as well?

Posted by: Lynn at August 07, 2006 01:53 PM (uyYKF)

9 "The rape that wasn't" is easily the most hilarious of these fake evidence examples. The pics were stills from a porno film that some monumental retards in Boston presented as evidence of US soldiers raping Iraqi women. I believe The Boston Globe reported the whole story as fact.

The first photo was a fake from early in the Afghan campaign, if I remember correctly.

Posted by: Neal at August 07, 2006 02:11 PM (zLPMP)

10 > What more could you want?

The editor who hired the maggot getting fired.
The editor who ran the picture getting fired.
All stringers getting very severe warnings.
A lawsuit against the maggot in question.

I would be a lot less annoyed if the errors were *random* but mysteriously, every one of these mistakes somehow, somehow went *against* US and Israeli interests. It's like being short-changed. Sure, maybe it's an honest mistake, but eventually you start to notice that the clerk is always favoring himself.

> "the rape that wasn't"

Some political group in Boston was peddling commercially produced porn, claiming it was documentary evidence of rapes of Iraqi (or perhaps Afghani, they weren't clear) women by US troops. The Boston Globe got so excited that they printed hard-core photos on their front page.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38481

Posted by: Malvolio at August 07, 2006 02:11 PM (meNGN)

11 Don't forget the cover of TV Guide showing Oprah in a beautiful gown, weighing about 30 pounds under her then-weight. Someone had pasted her head on top of a decades-old photo of Ann-Margret.

Posted by: Jay at August 07, 2006 02:50 PM (zo/+l)

12 All,

Once upon a time the press held the gov't to account. Since then, no one has held the press to account until blogs came around. Thank *Insert the God/Gods of your Choice here* for Blogs.

Pete

Posted by: Pete at August 07, 2006 03:26 PM (Zql5R)

13 Keeping with the StarGate analogy:

Condi is a Goa'uld.
Rove is a Wraith
Cindy Sheehan is an Ori

Well, at least the last one doesn't require Photoshop!

Posted by: old_dawg at August 07, 2006 03:45 PM (7nc0l)

14 I have a couple more suspicious photos here.

Posted by: Psycmeistr at August 07, 2006 03:49 PM (kpWUF)

I linked from Old War Dogs >> Reutergate 5 -- And the beatdown goes on.

Tomorrow when the world finds out Hajj and Green Helmet Dude have been
sleeping together for years, remember you heard it from me first so I can
be on Drudge Radio and CNN.

Posted by: Bill Faith at August 07, 2006 04:29 PM (n7SaI)

16 This is the only reference I can find to this photo at the moment,

http://brutus1964.blogspot.com/2006/03/reuters-runs-cheney-retire-photo.html

but I know other websites had this one, plus a long shot that did NOT have "retire" over Cheney's head.

Posted by: iamfelix at August 07, 2006 04:31 PM (MBuLb)

17 This is the only reference I can find to this photo at the moment,

http://brutus1964.blogspot.com/2006/03/reuters-runs-cheney-retire-photo.html

but I know other websites had this one, plus a long shot that did NOT have "retire" over Cheney's head.

Posted by: iamfelix at August 07, 2006 04:32 PM (MBuLb)

18 The top photo was a picture of a U.S. soldier superimposed on a group of Iraqi refugees. The original pic showed a soldier just standing there. The revised pic shows him pointing a rifle at one group of Iraqis and making dominant hand gestures toward the man holding the child. If I recall correctly, I think they also made the soldier bigger.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at August 07, 2006 04:39 PM (c/4ax)

19 Sorry about the double post above - I have dialup, and it's very slow and balky today. Here's a reference with a long shot:

http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/03/followup_reuters_cheney_photo.html

Posted by: iamfelix at August 07, 2006 04:43 PM (MBuLb)

20 Temple Stark: evidently you're not as smart as you seem to think. In law there's this idea called "false in one, false in all." That is, once a witness has committed one lie (and been caught out) then the jurors may disbelieve all their other testimony.

Reuters has shown itself not just to be "false in one" but false repeatedly, in the same direction. Which part of this don't you understand? It is no longer our job to sort out the lies by Reuters from the truth, it's their damn job to regain our trust.

I figure you must be so smart that you're still sending your banking info to people in Nigeria who are going to share milllions of dollars with you. After all, ALL those emails can't be false, can they?

Posted by: JorgXMckie at August 07, 2006 06:31 PM (f02nH)

21 What about that photo of a protester, where the guy in the background held a sign that was offensive so it was photoshopped out?

Posted by: Amphipolis at August 07, 2006 08:03 PM (mB/jw)

22 I don't know, Congoleeza looks pretty much how I would expect her to look after dealing with those morons over there in lala land!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 08, 2006 01:50 AM (gLMre)

23 I'm stunned that more people aren't bright enough to know that the liberal media has an agenda to snow the American people. Once again, it's all about trying to resume their position of power, regardless of whom it may harm. The liberal media has far more responsibility in deaths of our soldiers and innocent bystanders of these conflicts than anyone is willing to admit. If we had the same liberal slant in the "news" back in the 40's we would probably all be speaking a different language today.

Posted by: Randy Mitchell at August 09, 2006 04:41 PM (1lNcy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

41kb generated in CPU 0.0144, elapsed 0.1027 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0933 seconds, 178 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

August 07, 2006

Recent Comments