« LGF's Charles Johnson exposes new fakery by the MSM | Main | A thought on the Lamont 'victory' »

August 07, 2006

The sound of silence from the Left

As I stated before, I was gone all weekend and am still catching up with the Reuters' faked photos scandal ...

What should surprise, but doesn't, is the total shutout of this story by some of the big guns of the Leftblogsphere

Not a peep from Kos (only a couple of diaries..which are handwringing that this is all blown out of proportion), nothing at Atrios or Firedoglake. Though, Glenn "Sockpuppet" Greenwald is taking a different tact at Salon...

It is indisputably wrong for a media outlet to alter photographs or other information so as to falsely represent what is being reported. That is beyond dispute. Yet for three straight days now (and still going strong), the right-wing blogosphere has been wallowing in a self-celebratory swarm because two photographs taken in Lebanon and published by Reuters were found to have been altered using Photoshop by the freelance photographer who submitted them.
Greenwald goes on to poo-poo this as "well it happens all the time, and it isn't really as bad as when FauxNews allowed false quotes attributed to John Kerry... Nothing to see here but just the usual wingnutteria..move along."

And of course, Greenwald describes Charles Johnson (watch video here) as one of the

anti-Reuters lynch mob leaders, Little Green Footballs
but he just can't bring himself to say Charles' name.

Rick Moran has steered through a lot more of the portside and directs these comments at them:

What does concern me is that you have become the unwitting propaganda pawns of Hizbullah when you ignore what Reuters has admitted doing; they have pulled every single one of Mr. Hajj’s photos from their archives because he has apparently been doctoring photos for weeks.
I'd quibble with the "unwitting" adjective. Too much of the Left has willingly smashed its moral compass in its eagerness to trash (yet again) Israel. Anything that doesn't fit into the anti-Israel/anti-American agenda has to be ignored (did Markos send out another one of his marching order memos?) or dismissed.

Reuters is scrambling ... a bit faster than CBS did during Rathergate (11 days!) ... however, it should make anyone reach for the box of Morton's when viewing anything from Reuters' freelancers.

Jeff Harrell interviews another photojournalist on the issue, getting some valuable insight in how that reporting realm works.

So now I know a heck of a lot more about how freelance photojournalism works. But I don't have any more answers than when I started. I still don't have any idea whether one or more photo editors at Reuters were complicit in Hajj's attempted frauds, or whether they were just incompetent at their jobs, or whether the process itself failed somehow.
I would point out that when the editorial policies of an organization already condition them to accept that which dovetails with their bias, they are inclined to blindly trust and forgo scrutiny. Reuters has developed the use of "scare quotes" around words like "terrorist" or "terrorism" into a high art (while explaining their unwillingness to use these words directly as an avoidance of "emotive" terms). Associated Press also was an easy victim of its leftwing bias, falling for a hoax photo of a "captured US soldier" that turned out to be a GI Joe doll.

This has always been the gaping pitfall of advocacy journalism. When one is more interested in Truth and preaching it to the great unwashed who haven't had the spiritual enlightment that comes with that journalism degree, then facts that don't fit the Greater Narative are an enemy to be clone-tooled out of existence.

Most of us are old hands at discerning the messages in marketing campaigns. Shiney pick-up trucks pictured with half-naked women draped over the hoods? Handsome couples hiking through lush forests while cigarettes dangle from their fingers? How about a burning Koran? Time well past for us to bring our collective discriminating eye to include "news" agency output as much as we dissect the photo/press release output of Big Tobacco, Big Sugar or Big Booze.

As Michelle states:

If Reuters had half a brain, it would post all of Hajj's photos on a separate site and welcome continued blogger analysis that uncovered this debacle in the first place. Withdrawing the photos to cover their tracks is a dumb idea.
That assumes Reuters is interested in actually adhering to their Trust Principles even when it contradicts their bias.

Let's just say I'm not taking that bet. Anymore than I find that the Left has gotten a case of the morals when I awake tomorrow morning.


Technorati: , , , , ,

Posted by Darleen at August 7, 2006 10:48 AM

Comments

Check out these photos of UAV footage from the IDF showing very clearly Hezbollah mobile rocket launchers firing from within built up areas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ8fSkSMhjw&mode=related&search=

Posted by: TBOB at August 8, 2006 04:06 AM

The Left's concern about the photo is just about equal to the Right's concern about dead Lebanese civilians.

Posted by: Josh at August 8, 2006 07:56 AM

Shiney pick-up trucks pictured with half-naked women draped over the hoods?

You say that like it is a bad thing...

The Left's concern about the photo is just about equal to the Right's concern about dead Lebanese civilians.

There's Josh with that moral equivalency. Oh, and a mighty broad brush to paint his strokes with. Strange, tho, that so many of these civilians who eat Israeli bombs seem to be the old, women, and children.

Whither the military-aged men?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 8, 2006 08:32 AM

Moral equivalency? Where did I say anything about that? Sounds like you're just repeating cant that you read somewhere. I simply pointed out that, in general, the Left makes more noise about the deaths of Lebanese civilians, while the Right makes more noise about doctored photos. Any conclusions you may draw from those rather obvious facts are yours alone.

Posted by: Josh at August 8, 2006 11:25 AM

Leftward bias? Reuters?

Sorry, you're mistaken on this one. Any organization can fall victim to hoaxes.

Being victimized doesn't imply any bias one way or the other.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at August 9, 2006 09:46 AM

Any organization can fall victim to hoaxes.

Sorry, Carl, I call bullshit.

Reuters is supposed to have editors on staff to prevent this very thing from happening. Professional editors.

The original photo that tipped the bucket was so obviously retouched that I initially thought for sure that someone had taken a Reuters published image and doctored it, to tweak Reuters and generate a buzz.

I didn't realize that it was the photographer who took the picture. And that Reuters had published the image as being...legitimate.

So that brings us back to the compentence - or lack thereof - of the editors in the photojournalism section of Reuters. If I, being neither a journalist nor a photography expert, could spot blatant retouching, then why couldn't professional editors do the same?

The answers I come up with are all unsettling.

a. the editors are incompetent

b. the editors where impaired in some manner or form

c. the retouched image fit the editors preconceived notions of war as waged by Israel and thus seemed to be "true"

d. someone higher up in the food chain at Reuters ordered the image published

Items c and d imply bias, Carl.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 9, 2006 11:29 AM

I simply pointed out that, in general, the Left makes more noise about the deaths of Lebanese civilians

And which organization involved in the fighting purposely targets civilians, Josh? The "Left"'s concern about civilian deaths is touching. When are y'all going to call upon Hezbollah to stop targeting civilians, abide by the Geneva Conventions[*], and to come into compliance with UN Resolution 1559?

[*] yes, Achmed, that means you can't fire your Katushya's from a playground, school, or hospital parking lot. And yes, that means wearing a military uniform so you can't just blend into the civilian population and escape your just reward.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 9, 2006 11:36 AM

My point was that each side only sees what it wants to see, and your response is good evidence of that phenomenon.

Posted by: Josh at August 9, 2006 12:52 PM

Josh

Where have you any evidence that the Right is not concerned about civilian deaths on either side?

Ok...they are adult enough to lament them without juvenile histrionics about "all war being bad" but that doesn't translate as no concern.

I see Lebanese civilians who are forced to stay in their towns by Hezbollah as human shields, I see Israeli soldiers who zero in on apartments where rocket/gunfire comes from to find women and children secreted in those homes as judas goats.

I am concerned that Hezbollah cynically and with deliberate calculation is in full death cult mode.

I am sorry that some of these women and children may die and I hold Hezbollah responsible. Not Israel.

That is the responsible adult moral reaction.

That so many of the Left refuse to be adults doesn't diminish my moral stance.

Posted by: Darleen at August 9, 2006 07:55 PM

Where have you any evidence that the Right is not concerned about civilian deaths on either side?

Straw man. I never said the Right is not concerned with civilian deaths on either side. I said the Right appears much more concerned with photoshopped pictures than they are with the deaths of Lebanese civilians.

You hold Hezbollah responsible and completely absolve Israel, but that is an ideologically-driven choice rather than a logical necessity. Both Hezbollah and Israel are but-for causes in the chain leading to these deaths and a thoughtful discussion of the conflict at least admits the possibility that Israel could achieve its goals without so much death and destruction. Emotional rhetoric and cliched insults directed at your domestic political opponents are a poor excuse for thoughtful consideration.

Posted by: Josh at August 10, 2006 07:37 AM

Josh,

As you might by now expect, Darleen doesn't want to debate you on your valid points. She just wants to host this blind, Left-hating echo chamber. She doesn't give a shit about civilians either when they're Arabs.

This Reuters story is a tempest in a teapot. The Winger bloggers are pathetic. As Billmon brilliantly summarizes:
"The fact that our homegrown war porn aficionados apparently find this offense more atrocious than the vile crimes being committed in this war -- by their side as well as by the officially designated terrorists -- speaks volumes about their ethical priorities, not to mention their sanitary habits."

Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2006 09:11 PM