Previous related posts here and here.

Damn! Sleep a little, miss a lot. I was up nearly all night following the original Reutergate story then let a "short nap" turn into an all-day thing, now I'm late to the party on this one.

Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon
Dr. Rusty Shackleford

Another photo by Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj has been shown to be doctored. The photo, which proports to be of an Israeli F-16 firing missiles on Lebanon has been doctored to make the photo seem more sensational.

Here is the original Reuters photo along with its caption. [Cropped version included here -- BF]

The F-16 in the photo is not firing missiles, but is rather dropping chaffe or flares designed to be a decoy for surface to air missiles. However, a close up of what Hajj calls "missiles" reveals that only one flare has been dropped. The other two "flares" are simply copies of the original.

[Read on here.]

Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has an excellent related post here.

***

Michelle Malkin: A smoke-clearing blogswarm

***

***

Ace: It Gets Funnier: Adnan Hajj Claims He Was Merely Attempting To Remove "Dust Marks" Under Poor Lighting Conditions, Will Clone-Stamp For Food

Kit Jarrell: “Reutered” is the New Word

Ed Driscoll: Picture Kill: How We Got Here

Not at all surprisingly, Dan Riehl's on a major roll over this. Click here, here, here and here.

Reuters Still Owes Us An Explanation
Ed Morrissey

Reuters took a necessary first step in rectifying the insult they gave their customers by publishing the crassly doctored photos supplied by Adnan Hajj. The wire service terminated his employment earlier today:

Reuters, the global news and information agency, told a freelance Lebanese photographer on Sunday it would not use any more of his pictures after he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut.

[...]

[Read the whole thing here.]

Reuters owes us an explanation -- in fact, a couple of them. First, how did the editors at Reuters manage to miss the crude alterations Hajj made to the image in question? Is it because his doctoring helped bolster their own agenda in covering this war? Second and even more importantly, why has Reuters not pulled all Hajj images from their service? If he was willing to doctor his photos with Photoshop, why would anyone trust him not to stage his other efforts at photojournalism for his own political purposes?

Two more examples of Reuters integrity here and here.

See next: Reutergate 4

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 6, 2006 at 08:53 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Media Perfidy | Permalink

Comments