Is That Legal?

Aha ... so doctoring and staging "news" photos to paint Israel in an unfavorable light is utterly insignificant!

This was helpful. Thanks for filling us in.

I'm a little surprised at your take on this. Misrepresenting a photo (aka "fake") is unlike reporting falsehoods...how?

Is this because it's Malkin's crowd? Honestly, I despise her take on things, but this particular issue is about journalistic integrity.

You mean it's NOT?

ELM: No, of course it is. What I'm mocking is the tone over at those places and the absurd exaggerations of the significance of the alterations.

My sense is that if the Bush admin or the Washington Times or some other right wing media outlet had been involved in this, you'd be pumping up the rhetoric pretty quickly. But since it is Malkin et al who caught the doctoring of the pic you just can't bring yourself to agree that it was stupid, reprehensible act. Is deliberate falsification of the news a little less of a journalistic sin when engaged in by people who share your views?

ELM: Reuben, haven't you noticed that when Israel bombs Beirut, its bombs produce slighly blacker and puffier smoke than when Hezbollah bombs Haifa?

Wait, what? You mean the smoke in that photo in reality was a bit less black and a bit less puffy?

MY GOD. That changes my entire view of the conflict!

Reality check, Reuben: The photoshopping of a news photo was bad photojournalism, and the photographer deserved censure for it. But it has none of the Scandalous Ideological Significance that Malkin, LGF, Powertools, and the others are screaming about.

So, manipulating photographs to help your cause is A-OK with you, as long as it's a cause you approve of?

ELM: Oh, yes, Michael. Absolutely! You have correctly inferred from my mocking of the Smoke Photo Triumphalism at Malkin and LGF that I favor glorious Hezbollah over the Zionist pig-dog entity!

One thing, though: remind me again how slightly blackening some smoke in a photograph advances the cause of glorious Hezbollah? I keep forgetting.

Hello, humorless wingnuts!

Please, explain to us Americans your conviction that any misstep by a journalist, no matter how little it changes the facts on the ground, is the critical piece of evidence proving that the MainStream Media are Objectively Pro-terrorist.

Please continue smacking them around Eric, I feel bad about breaking your streak.

By the way, there's something wrong with your comment-spam feature when I use preview; the sentence changes, but the answer from the original page is still (I think) the answer your system is looking for.

I did not say that the msm is objectively pro-terrorist. My point is that it's ludicrous to pretend that by doctoring the pic the doctorer did not mean to elicit a certain reaction in the viewer. Otherwise, why photoshop the pic at all?

Reuben, if the photoshopper deleted a few buildings, that's one thing. But that isn't what happened.

There is no fundamental difference in the buildings. Both pics show smoking rubble. Whether it's grey smoke or black smoke, the fact still remains that there's still rubble on the ground.

Otherwise, why photoshop the pic at all?

Um, aesthetics? Try putting the altered and unaltered in black and white - the original isn't all that clear, whereas the modified version is a lot crisper.

I'm not saying this was why it was done, but it's hardly unimaginable. It's not like the only concievable explanation is ideology and malice.

Jeebus, do you wingnuts listen? Nothing wrong with firing the guy for shitty journalism, but the picture alteration changes nothing. The smoke from that bombing still means the same thing as if it were black or slightly grey.

totally rad, broham! i "discovered" a couple of "librul" photo frauds myself!

OMFG! trators!!!

lookit these librul medias lieing to us!!!

Well, ok. But I still don't buy it -- the original looks absolutely fine to me. It is implausible that a Lebanese freelance photographer (who has other pics that have quite rightly come into question) would make the decision to photoshop in smoke that is blacker and thicker than the original without some idea that he was trying to influence the viewer.

But enough of this discussion. I'll let you get back to calling those who disagree with you "wingnuts." Carry on!

eric, i think the real significance may be if any of hajj's photos were staged. i myself find it hard to believe some of them. eureferendum.blogspot.com is a less rabid source for those of us who don't venture to malkin's place.

Is it possible that he just upped the "contrast" in the photo to make it look "sharper"... I do that with my home photos all the time.

ELM: No, it's quite clear that he did some cutting and pasting to make the smoke clouds look taller than they were.

"If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something important, you should consider not believing anything that witness says." Standard Instruction to California Jurors.

Tell me, counselor, shouldn't we now apply the same standard to our friends at Reuters?

ELM: Absolutely! I no longer believe any Reuters photograph.

eric, regarding my concerns of staging by hezzbollah, this is making the rounds today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc

i wish i could speak arabic & german so i could verify this, but it looks disturbing.

ELM: To be clear, I've never said anything about the staging of news photographs, which would be reprehensible. My comments were about the ruckus over the photoshopping of some extra smoke, and the leaps people were making to political motive and effect.

don't you know, where's there extra smoke . . . .

I don't see the same bright line between the photoshopped photos and those that may have been staged.

Consider that the photos that we altered appeared in the same news outlets as photos accompanied by misleading captions and photos that might well have been staged. Take a look at this summary of various Reuters photos that are being questioned. The ones that I find interesting are those where the same person appears in different roles in different photos.

Consider also the tight control over the media that is being reported by returning western reporters. Is is so hard to imagine that the "news" photos that we are seeing might well be Hezzbollah propaganda?

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

If a picture is worth a thousand words,
what is a "doctored" picture worth?

Only your HMO knows for sure; and, their accountants used to work at Enron.

Trust is diminished by any source that minimizes truth. Where will it all end? Doctored political ads showing hair in Hillary's armpit??
Playboy doctoring gorgeous women??

If a picture is worth a thousand words,
what is a "doctored" picture worth?

Guess it depends on how good the doctor does his work.