No, but if there was some 'artistic licence' used, it hardly amounts to a travesty of justice or a distortion of the truth. The likelihood is that initially there was much more smoke and that the photographer simply wanted to represent that in the image.There are plenty of other reliable source of reports of the level of destruction coming out of Lebanon - and the idea that they are all lying, or 'conspiring against Israel' is simply preposterous.In any case even if one unscrupulous journalist did sensationalise this one single image in order to try to sell a more sensational picture and to try to make a bigger profit, it doesn't change all of the television reports and the reports of independent reporters and aid agencies that are coming in from on the ground inside Lebanon.Reality is a much harder thing to fake than a lot of you people appear to assume,More than that the guy got caught out, just like any other so called fake photo would be likely to be caught out too. There are too many clever people in the world and too many others with an axe of their own to grind without this kind of thing being spotted and being nipped in the bud pretty damn quickly.
@DannoHungI asked myself the same question. I think it comes down to how blatant this type of thing has become at Reuters, and how careless their editorial staff has become in its efforts to shape the truth. Let's be honest, if it weren't for watchdogs like LGF (a relatively new phenomenon), this would never have made the news.
So Sunchild, care to explain exactly how that photoshopped photo of Beirut shaped the truth? 'Cause I'm at a loss as to what exactly point LGF is/was trying to make. That the photographer was trying to make the city look 12% more smoky, thus driving millions of people who were on-the-fence about the war into the welcoming arms of Hezbollah?
Keyword: freelanceHe was not an official employee of Reuters.How hard is that to understand?and if by sh*t you mean facts, I'm sorry to hear you have a problem.
"therealduckie" expresses his/her facts as; "Little Gay gentlemen, ****y Malkin, Mini Rush Limbutt's, whinning(sic) pussies". This is his idea of relevant contributions to the "community". His/her rant continues with a call to DIGG down all of those with opposing views and then has the gall to say that opposition should be heard. Contradiction anyone? "Join us in a 'HEALTHY DEBATE' " he say's and adds how he misses a nice, clean, fact driven discussion. Duckie, you are laughable but typical of the lefty loons of kossville. This thread is about the faked photos that Reuters placed for world view. Not about you.
'therealduckie' complains about a lack of "tech" stories when the story we are all on is about lying, truth-bending media like Reuters. Simple as that. There is definitely a 'tech' side to the story but that is not the issue at hand. It is not (I repeat) about "duckie" stories. He continues to cry for "healthy debate" and 'truth' yet when faced with the truth of Reuters using very preventable faked photos he claims the 'left' is under attack. Pathetic. Reuters has already (hours ago) admitted that Hajj presented them with 'at least' two different faked photos (and fired his a.s and removed more than 900 of his photos), what problem does duckie have with the "truth"? Oh, that's right, when confronted with proof a fool feigns indignity. Why is the truth so hard for you ‘duckie’?
Well said, my Canadian friend. I especially liked your comments on religion.I avoid organized religion like the plague, but it doesn't affect me in an adverse way. Islam, on the other hand, commands its followers to destroy me. This is the one fact that both muslims and liberals refuse to address.....totally amazing.
Doesn't matter if you are Republican or Dem, you need to read this article by Pat Buchanan and get the facts right before you pass judgment on this. (Go to <a class="user" href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116">http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116</a> )Here is what Buchanan wrote:When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.Now, Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon – smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy – has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.What Israel is up to was described by its army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza and demanded a prisoner exchange.Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?How much must America pay for the education of this man?
raid517Aug 6, 2006
No, but if there was some 'artistic licence' used, it hardly amounts to a travesty of justice or a distortion of the truth. The likelihood is that initially there was much more smoke and that the photographer simply wanted to represent that in the image.There are plenty of other reliable source of reports of the level of destruction coming out of Lebanon - and the idea that they are all lying, or 'conspiring against Israel' is simply preposterous.In any case even if one unscrupulous journalist did sensationalise this one single image in order to try to sell a more sensational picture and to try to make a bigger profit, it doesn't change all of the television reports and the reports of independent reporters and aid agencies that are coming in from on the ground inside Lebanon.Reality is a much harder thing to fake than a lot of you people appear to assume,More than that the guy got caught out, just like any other so called fake photo would be likely to be caught out too. There are too many clever people in the world and too many others with an axe of their own to grind without this kind of thing being spotted and being nipped in the bud pretty damn quickly.
catttttAug 6, 2006
For your consideration - another in the Adnan "Cloner" Hajj series?<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/world_news/Another_Reuters_Adnan_Hajj_Clone_Photo_Looks_like_it#c2594131">http://digg.com/world_news/Another_Reuters_Adnan_Hajj_Clone_Photo_Looks_like_it#c2594131</a>
designerAug 6, 2006
I thought news services were to report the news accurately. This gives right-wingers credence when they talk about the "liberal media".
sunchildAug 7, 2006
@DannoHungI asked myself the same question. I think it comes down to how blatant this type of thing has become at Reuters, and how careless their editorial staff has become in its efforts to shape the truth. Let's be honest, if it weren't for watchdogs like LGF (a relatively new phenomenon), this would never have made the news.
jesushchristAug 7, 2006
So Sunchild, care to explain exactly how that photoshopped photo of Beirut shaped the truth? 'Cause I'm at a loss as to what exactly point LGF is/was trying to make. That the photographer was trying to make the city look 12% more smoky, thus driving millions of people who were on-the-fence about the war into the welcoming arms of Hezbollah?
thotpoiznAug 7, 2006
@Cixel - what I find incredible is that they continue to run *any* photo by Hajj until this controversy is cleared up one way or the other...
valis1Aug 7, 2006Submitter
Heh! Somebody has tagged this as "possibly inaccurate". Now that is funny.
fsjonseyAug 7, 2006
Certain people on digg hate seeing a story from a pro- Israel, anti islamist blog get dugg so much, that they will ignore the truth.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2006
Keyword: freelanceHe was not an official employee of Reuters.How hard is that to understand?and if by sh*t you mean facts, I'm sorry to hear you have a problem.
notaslickAug 9, 2006
"therealduckie" expresses his/her facts as; "Little Gay gentlemen, ****y Malkin, Mini Rush Limbutt's, whinning(sic) pussies". This is his idea of relevant contributions to the "community". His/her rant continues with a call to DIGG down all of those with opposing views and then has the gall to say that opposition should be heard. Contradiction anyone? "Join us in a 'HEALTHY DEBATE' " he say's and adds how he misses a nice, clean, fact driven discussion. Duckie, you are laughable but typical of the lefty loons of kossville. This thread is about the faked photos that Reuters placed for world view. Not about you.
notaslickAug 9, 2006
'therealduckie' complains about a lack of "tech" stories when the story we are all on is about lying, truth-bending media like Reuters. Simple as that. There is definitely a 'tech' side to the story but that is not the issue at hand. It is not (I repeat) about "duckie" stories. He continues to cry for "healthy debate" and 'truth' yet when faced with the truth of Reuters using very preventable faked photos he claims the 'left' is under attack. Pathetic. Reuters has already (hours ago) admitted that Hajj presented them with 'at least' two different faked photos (and fired his a.s and removed more than 900 of his photos), what problem does duckie have with the "truth"? Oh, that's right, when confronted with proof a fool feigns indignity. Why is the truth so hard for you ‘duckie’?
biggydiggsAug 9, 2006
Well said, my Canadian friend. I especially liked your comments on religion.I avoid organized religion like the plague, but it doesn't affect me in an adverse way. Islam, on the other hand, commands its followers to destroy me. This is the one fact that both muslims and liberals refuse to address.....totally amazing.
yaya765Aug 18, 2006
Doesn't matter if you are Republican or Dem, you need to read this article by Pat Buchanan and get the facts right before you pass judgment on this. (Go to <a class="user" href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116">http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116</a> )Here is what Buchanan wrote:When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.Now, Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon – smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy – has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.What Israel is up to was described by its army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza and demanded a prisoner exchange.Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?How much must America pay for the education of this man?
skrowlAug 3, 2007
Amusing that a story with "accurate" is marked as inaccurate on digg, despite being proven true.
spankaccountAug 4, 2007
Wow, it turned out to be true after all and it's still marked "Inaccurate"at Digg?
cpsoperAug 4, 2007
Fake but accurate!Even Reuters' executives admit this true now. Wakey wakey.