What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.292 Comments
- least, on 10/12/2007, -4/+94SEEMINGLY faked!!?
The photo shows perfectly symmetrical AND IDENTICAL billows of smoke.
That doesn't happen.
But it's just another day in the bizzaro-world of the willing blind. - aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+74@samnmax
Actually, if you read the article, you'd find that lgf DOESN'T see this as part of an anti-Israel conspiracy by the media (although he believes that, too). In this case, rather, he says it's the result of "outsourcing so much of their reporting to low-paid foreign stringers with highly questionable loyalties and ethics." He's calling this shoddy journalism, like Rathergate, not anti-Semetic. - chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+72needs more lens flare.
- UncommonSense, on 10/12/2007, -14/+83Reported as fake but accurate.
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67*Breaking News*
The photographer caved in and released a second version of this photo, which he claims is the REAL one!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/Coheedcollapse/REALphoto.jpg - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+64This picture is so poorly faked, that I'm pretty shocked they would let it slide. The moment the picture came up on my screen, my "this is photoshoped" mental alerts went off. You don't even have to be an amateur Photoshopper to spot the cloning.
Not only is Reuters hiring bad journalist, they're hiring bad journalist with bad Photoshop skills. :) - grovedude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60A bunch of professional photographers are talking about this right now, on SportsShooter:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21302
Conclusion: This is obviously faked big time. - electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -11/+69Just checked Reuters ( http://photos.reuters.com/news/newssearchresults.aspx?srch=Beirut&searchtype=p ) and it turns up the file (2nd in search).
It's quite concerning _why_ someone would want to do it. _Why_ are they so blatantly image doctoring files to make them look more dramatic from Israeli bombings? It's also got me wondering why so many of those pictures have smoke in them, yet how did the camera crews get to all of them while there was thick billowing black smoke?
I mean the only reason to do it is to make Israel look bad, when they're getting missiles launched at them which regularly killing their citizens, but suddenly when Israel fights back the news just can't resist painting them as concentration camp guards. It sickens me, I frankly don't care if kids died in the Israeli bombings, because Hezbollah fire their missiles from school grounds and use UN buildings as cover so Israel won't fire back. I say we should shut the ***** up and let Israel do what it's doing, they've been better at fighting these extremists than we have and it's quite possibly because for every Israeli killed they're killing like 50 of them and eventually the people Hezbollah are hiding in are going to massacre them for putting them in danger.
I think Reuters just proved they're worse news than the ***** tabloids if they're doctoring their pictures. How can we trust _anything_ from them now that they're releasing fake news, I don't really care if there was actually smoke if they're enhancing an image to make it look better/worse it's fake news and propaganda. - Cannon13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+55Everyone can go here http://today.reuters.com/HelpAndInfo/ContactUs.aspx to tell Reuters what they think of this.
- dallen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54Click on the picture. The link goes to Yahoo, which is hosting the Reuters photo. Obviously, Reuters did use it
- kevin.gc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46They didn't even use the clone tool carefully. The same top portion of a billow of smoke appears about 10 times. They could have at least added some randomness, burn, and blur.
I don't really trust Reuters anymore. I also find their lack of Photoshop skills disgusting. - bilbus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43Well some reporter faked a photo of a marine detaining suspects once. He took two photos and combined it to make it look like the marine had a family at gunpoint.
This kind of stuff should be a felony, and should loose their right to be a reporter - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41My God, I thought I was inept at Photoshop. This image wasn't Photoshoped, more like MS Paint'ed.
- blueroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40The blog has useful additional content, far more useful for linking to than just a picture. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't link-worthy.
- zorpscorp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Forget photoshop, I think they just used mspaint. :-/
That's the quite possibly the worst photo-manip ever. - Lexus30, on 10/12/2007, -13/+49i dont know about this one... would reuters really use a picture that blatently fake? im no pro, and i can do better than that!
- lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38Don't be stupid. It's clearly a modified photo. If you deny that then we know EXACTLY where you're comng from.
- b-dizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33I agree, I could tell that was clone stamped the second I saw it, and I only have a semester of PS skillz.
- cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32answer is: Anyone with professional ethic.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38How long before someone claims it was a Jew who hacked into the system to fake the photo to try and make Reuters out to be a Hezzbollah supporter?
- alder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36There's simply way too much smoke in this picture. I've seen pictures of cities being bombed, and the amount of smoke is generally pretty minor. I guess it wasn't dramatic enough for the reporters.
- ninti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32So let's see what kind of organization Reuters is. If they are smart, they will deal with this swiftly and decisively. They need to issue a correction and state that they will never purchase photos from this source again, and they need to do it within 24 hours. Basically they need to make the retraction newsworthy and topical, so that people remember they cared about this and fixed it. If they do their reputation may even go up. If they deny, hesitate, deal with it less than decisvely, or if they wait too long to say anything about it at all, all people will remember is that they posted a fake picture, and their credability will go down the drain. We'll see.
- fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34LGF was the same blog that exposed the Rathergate Memos.I've seen better photoshop jobs on owned.com
- av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29We've already established that they suck at Photoshop. That would be why.
- samcrut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Do you look at the Sunday comics and find them filled with photo-realistic imagery too? The photo is so obviously doctored that an 8 year old could do better. But I guess if the world is naturally fuzzy to you then that might apply a natural Gaussian blur to everything you see so that you can't make out the veritable flashing neon sign that says "FAKE!"
Digg +1 to cancel your doggin'. - jkenda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Sometimes outsourcing isn't your buddy
- Akufen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Salsa I'm sure you know a great deal about photo manips, and you're probably right about the buildings.. but, and I've been working with photoshop for about a decade, I'd bet my right hand that that smoke is brushed in, not even cloned.
- ninti, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Nah, it's fake. I personally don't want it to be fake and I loaded it up into Photoshop with the intention of showing that is was not fake but instead just coincedence, but I failed. The smoke copies have been altered just enough to not be perfectly exact, but the buildings are pixel by pixel copies of each other, minus a little opacity changing. Even if two buildings looked completely identical, the pixels still would never line up like that. It's completely fake. Doh.
- neom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24The issues is nothing to do with the subject of the photo... it's about the ethics of journalism. As a rule of thumb, papers are just not allowed to edit their photos in such a way.
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I'm wondering if there are more altered Reuters photographs out there, perhaps more subtley altered and more skillfully executed. Perhaps it's just one member of their staff or perhaps its a widespread thing, but if one image has been digitally manipulated to 'dramatize' the scene, how do we know how many more are?
- brianmost, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35"So it's cool to kill 50 or 60 innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli killed? How is that not terrorism on a grand scale?"
They aren't innocent while they allow Hezbollah to exist in their borders while warring on the neighbor. The entirity of a country is responsible for its government. - MaSC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29Are you kidding, look at the smoke it's so obvious it's silly.
- lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Good call. I sent them a stinger....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22samnmax, that's not the point.
Like the phony Downing Street Memos and the Dan Rather (ala Bill Burkett) faked Bush National Guard records, Reuters was shown what they wanted to believe, and because it was what they wanted to believe, they didn't do any fact checking.
They may get hundreds of photos a day, but if a few blogs can notice they are fakes (just as they did with Dan Rather's phony National Guard records), Reuters should have been able to notice. That is, Reuters should have been able to notice, if they were doing their job.
They didn't, because like Dan Rather, Reuters was more interested in having their bias proven right.
There have been far too many examples of faked stories (from CNN's Sarin Gas story) to this to say, each is a fluke. There is an established pattern of the liberal news media, buying hook, line and sinker, any story that tells them what they already believe.
The responsibility of actual reporting has fallen to the blogs. The liberal media has proven to be nothing more than a clearing service for the DNC spinmeisters, conspiracy theory moonbats, and terrorist operatives needing a conduit for their propaganda.
What did Lenin once say about useful idiots? - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23OH MY GOD
This is UNREAL
we call them on their crap about the photo being manipulated, they kill the photo and reissue a new one with the smoke cleaned up to look more natural.
new photo
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060806/ids_photos_wl/r1119244085.jpg
killed photo
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/060806/ids_photos_wl/r3607862130.jpg
I am in total disbelief a this point. We are being blatantly manipulated. This needs to get out to mainstream media somehow. - cmallinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21and a bit more cowbell
- Cannon13, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29How is it inaccurate? I suppose because the ramifications aren't in line with your opinion.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Does not mean that our liberal mainstream media in the US will not put this photo on the front page...they dont care if its an accurate picture as long as it fits their agenda.
- neko6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23That's what you get when you let Arab Muslims write the stories and take the pictures and videos you see - one sided stories with lies. I can't imagine an Arab Muslim would provide honest coverage, so why do Reuters, CNN, BBC etc. rely 100% on them?!
- JG2K7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20It's obvious the picture is doctored.
But the person who doctored it could've at least thrown in some TIE Fighters, or perhaps Godzilla.
Ten bucks says that would've made it through Reuters "expert" story editing process. - Crazieman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Not by Hajj?
Gee, whats this?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060730/ids_photos_wl/r3251674915.jpg - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Somebody's ass is going to end up in a briefcase over this one.
I retouch photos for a living and this is so immediately apparent it's not funny. - Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Don't trust Reuters? Crap -- I don't trust ANY medai whore source. That includes CNN, MSNBC all the classic TV Networks, AND FOX News. I also don't trust bloggers most of whom have some hidden agenda (if an overt one isn't obvious). One thing I do trust is that Hezbollah has killed more Americans around the world than any other terrorist organization and they want to kill more of us. It isn't "just" an Israel - Lebanon issue.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20and you probably put in more time than the first guy
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19If you zoom in you will simply see the artifacts from the lossy compression format they used.
Reuters should release the RAW image if they care about their reputation. - KrazyA1pha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23star, are you a ***** moron or are you blind? When I run across someone so BLATANTLY close-minded as to put lame labels on others because of their perceiving the obvious, it makes me sick.
Now go ***** off. - mjpatey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19This is absolutely awful fakery. It's awful in quality, and it's an awful act of journalistic irresponsibility.
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19The wierd thing is that the guy who took that picture has plenty of legit shots. I wonder if it was the editor, or himself that did the crappy photo editing.
Whatever it is, this is just an incredibly weird situation. I know for a fact that a photo editor with Reuters would know their way around Photoshop, stamp is such a simple tool to use, and it's obvious when something looks fake. As a freelance photojournalist myself, every paper that I've ever had the fortune to work for has had some sort of complex naming process that was to be undertaken in photoshop, and for the most part, I'd just assume anyone taking digital photos for a large scale news source would have at least an elementary knowledge of photoshop (even if we never use it - photojournalism isn't photojournalism if you change the original picture).
I seriously knew how to photoshop better than this when I was 10. What the hell is wrong with these people? I'm looking forward to seeing if this shapes up to be an elaborate prank, or if this photographer is just an idiot. - libertyone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Bingo! That's the whole point. This photo is so fake it is a complete joke. The full on Army of Davids storm has completely and totally kicked it's ass. It is fake.
So, that leaves us with your bullseye comment.... to paraphrase: I wonder how many better fakes we've seen through the years.
BTW: Star -- Thanks for making the joke part of all this fun. You are Bagdad Bob on a really really bad day. - av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Photoshop CS2 can be set to compensate for perspective when cloning, star. It's one of the newer features
-
Show 51 - 100 of 274 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
