Without explanation, the BBC has replaced a fraudulent AP photo that was running to illustrate one of its stories. Drinking From Home has the whole story, and proof of the fraud.
Before:
After:
It is disheartening that the BBC has elected simply to consign the fraudulent photo to the memory hole, rather than own up to the fact that it either intended to deceive or was duped. They have thus not addressed the larger problem of the extent to which what passes itself off as objective news coverage is actually just war propaganda. And that makes it likely that the propaganda will continue.
Keep up the good work, blogosphere!
Memo to the BBC: there's one Adnan Hajj - a photographer that London Calling could use.
BBC = Binladen Broadcasting Corporation.
We can only hope that the slow whittling of the MSM's "mindshare" continues. Events like these deceptions make it into the consciousness of the Jihad-aware like us, but I wonder if anyone out there in TV zombieland has any idea that the images they take in are crafted by Jihadis.
Hezbollah is nothing short of brilliant. The fraud that gets caught is tiny, compared with the fact that they decide what images get captured in Lebanon, lock stock and barrel. Essentially, all images coming out of Lebanon are at some level tainted. I personally want the BBC to mention a single instance of Israelis being killed, of the 1m Jews (and Arabs) who are hiding in bomb shelters. It's as if only Lebanese suffering rates. What a sham of a media organization.
DO YOU REMEMBER???
WILL ANYONE SAY THAT MOVE-ON .ORG LIED?
Probably not .. because Moveon.org is a liberal organization ... just about as liberal as you can get without changing your name to socialism.org or peaceatanyprice.org. Here's the story. Moveon.org was running an advertisement on its website calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq: i.e., calling for surrender. As the narrator of this ad was talking about American troops they showed a picture of British troops --- saying that they were Americans. You could tell they were Brits because one of them was wearing shorts .. not part of the American GI uniform. When Moveon.org learned of the error they tried to alter the photograph by darkening the British fatigues to look more like American fatigues, and by photoshopping a new pair of pants on the soldier wearing shorts! This, of course, was a deliberate and premeditated attempt to deceive. The very thing the left is so fond of attributing to George Bush. Later, when their attempt to deceive was discovered, they just eliminated the picture altogether
Hugh Sykes is as biased and outrageous in his coverage, in what he chooses to exaggerate and what he chooses to entirely ignore, as anyone in the BBC line-up, past or present. I hope someone is keeping tapes of his every appearance, so that transcripts can be made, and his entire performance -- for that is what it is --- can be made the object of critical scrutiny and unsparing study. To have Lord Haw-Haws not in Berlin, but working for, being broadcast by, the BBC at Bush House, is intolerable. Intolerable not only for the chief current victims -- Israel with its "carnage" (after nearly a month of war, and having endured, already, 3,000 missiles flung at its villages and cities, those "monstrous" Israelis continue to leaflet and telephone to warn "civilians" and the total number of "civilians" -- whatever Siniora claims -- cannot conceivably be 600, or even 400, or even 300, that is about 10 a day, unless a great many Hezbollah fighters in mufti, as they all are when not goose-stepping on parade, always are, the better to blend in with the "civiians" behind and beside whom they hide, while the Israels engagged in a hellishly difficult campaign not only to locate those 12,000 missiles that may remain, but also to destroy whatever roads and bridges are used for transshipping the endlessly replenishable supply coming from Iran and its eager assistant, Syria), nonetheless to continue to observe the highest Western standards for armed conflict. No, intolerable as well, and dangerous, for the British and other Infidels, still unclear as to what this war is against Israel (it is a Lesser Jihad, no different in its promptings, though for the moment different in the instruments chosen to pursue it, as that Jihad now being pursued mainly through Da'wa and demographic conquest in Great Britain itself. If the people of Great Britain cannot take back control of the BBC from the likes of Hugh Sykes, then they will have no future -- or rather, their future will be one of ever-greater unpleasantness, unsettlement, expense, and physical insecurity.
Their choice. There is still time for them, in sufficient numbers, to come to their senses.
Collective punishment is very good, a reward for the people who elected the irresponsible government. The Lebanese has a choice to bring up insurrection against the Huzbullah now if they see the cause of their problem.
Of course, there will be more excusses for not doing so.
Wow , anyone watching CNN, its slanting towards the islamofacists more each day. The sardonic sly innuendos come fast and furious,like this young gal who is on now. Wolf is even handed but their international bureau is riddled with anti Israeli rhetoric , that Irish one who is pursing her lips is driving me nuts. Hold tight its all going down in the next day. Thankyou Israel , the founding fathers would be right at your side.
This poor woman gets around. Is she a Hezbollah movie star or fashion model for 'Fatima's Secret'?
http://photos.reuters.com/news/newsPhotoPresentation.aspx?type=photoSearch&imageID=2006-08-01T085908Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_0_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST.XML
The Biased Broadcasting Corp still at it. I suggest joining http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/
they are flagging instances of meda bias. The BBC is the worst offendor, feel free to complain to the BBC every time you see or hear of any bias on there part. The Beebs contract is comming up for renewal soon rember all brits have to pay towards the BBC through the TV Licence Fee.
The Beebs contract is comming up for renewal soon rember all brits have to pay towards the BBC through the TV Licence Fee.
Posted by: ANonnyMouse
Otherwise known as the jizyah!
The Biased Broadcasting Corp still at it. I suggest joining http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/
they are flagging instances of meda bias. The BBC is the worst offendor, feel free to complain to the BBC every time you see or hear of any bias on there part. The Beebs contract is comming up for renewal soon rember all brits have to pay towards the BBC through the TV Licence Fee.
Sorry about the multiple posts.
This from the BBC seems extremely dishonest to me.
Mid-East conflict: Who stands where
An American going by the name of John Breland happened to post a comment at the Jerusalem Post recently. That post contained a most catchy acronym . . .NME . . .which stands for National Media Establishment.
We just don't thank our soldiers enough for all they do. THANK YOU, John Breland, that is brilliant!
These things are full of lies, what a pity!! shameful mass media
ever notice how the "reporters" try to ask leading questions and try to influence the person being interview into making a statement that would belittle Israel or any terror fighting senario. THese reporters should be paid by Al-Jeezera. They are disgusting.
Why does Israel not go after the snakes head syria iran>? Thoughts.
It is disheartening that the BBC has elected simply to consign the fraudulent photo to the memory hole, rather than own up to the fact that it either intended to deceive or was duped.
Disheartening? Really?
I thought that all was fair in love and war?
Disinformation is as old as war itself; but it seems that the general are starting to understand what journalism students have always been taught -- perception is reality.
The BBC,CNN, and all the rest got away with this sort of thing especially with the so-called atrocities committed by the Serbs a few years back.
No one even thought to question the fact that all the "mass-graves" never really existed!
And where did that Reuters photographer actually learn his trade?
Didn't George Orwell base his Ministry of Truth on the BBC?
Amamzing! That really is the same bint in both pictures. Good eye on these bloggers.
But the queston remains, all these efforts by the jihadists, islamofascists, call em what you will--who do they think they are appealing to?
I see that picture and I can only think, here is a dipsh*t who harbors a terorist organzization. Am I supposed to care if she dies cold and homeless on the street?
I just don't get it...
Definition of people who actually trust the news and believe reporters are truthful.:
dhim·mi (dm or zm) - A Qur'anic term that refers to a subjugated non-Muslim person living in a society dominated by Muslims. Second-class status is confirmed by the legal system and dhimmis do not share the rights of their Muslim rulers. (ex. of use: "Hey Jimmy, if you want to be a dhimmi, then you'd better learn how to shimmy.")
dhim·wit (dmwt ) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away their own freedom, if given the opportunity
Did you notice that Israel apologized for the fact that Lebanese civilians that Hezbollah was launching rockets from behind got caught in the crossfire? I wonder when Hezbollah will issue an apology for the rockets it has intentionally used to kill Isreali civilians? What's that? Never? Oh yeah, that's right, Hezbollah is a terrorist group trying to wipe out Israel and all her citizens. And when will Human Right Watch hold Hezbollah to the same standards it holds Israel? What's that? Never? Oh yeah, that's right, it's just another antiZionist propaganda outfit trying to look as if it actually places equal value on all human life.
Well people, this was bound to be the case. Here's why:
The media is run by journalists. In order to become a journalist, you must go to journalism school, you must get a degree in journalism. Journalism is a liberal art.
By and large, those young people in our high schools who seek higher education, tend to be of a liberal disposition. Those that seek the liberal arts specifically, tend to be more liberal still. And those that seek a career in the liberal art of journalism are one step even above that. So what motivates a young high schooler to go study journalism?
A political conviction. Simple. Someone who wishes to be a journalist is imbued with a sense of duty to report what is bad in the world, since most news is about what is bad, not what is good. But to young person from that ideological viewpoint, what is bad in the world are the wrong doings of western governments, the wrong doings of society, the wrong doings of the upper class, the corporations, the rich, you get the idea. Journalists want to be the next woodward by toppling the west, by critiqing its institutions, its governments, it military, its corporations. That is their raison d'etre. To cast a critial eye on the west.
By definition, these young people have a leftist slant even before they step into journalism place. That is what motivates them to go there in the first place.
So, when the west, and Israel is part of that west, is in a conflict with a non-western society, be in Viet Nam or Iraq, or Lebanon, or Nicaragua, the young journalist approaches the conflict already with a sense of who is right and who is wrong. And rather than simply report the news, as is their sworn mandate, they use the power of their pulpit to interpret the news for us, in a way that mirrors their view of the world, their view of morality, their view of who is bad and who is good. Whether is be a print journalist, a photo journalist, or an anchorman like Dan Rather. They all have the same Leftist calling.
The fact that our journalist are biased towards the left and by doing so, are betraying their mandate of unbiases reporting, is bad enough. But what we have seen here in the last couple days is proof that the bias goes far deeper. For whenever they do not have the proof of the wrong doing of the west, they will invent it, when their emotions are running high enough. That is how ideologically motivated they are as human beings, forget about as journalists, as human beings they exist like that.
For those of you in the UK, the BBC's Newsnight programme is going to be tackling the Reuters photo-editing and related issues this evening at 10.30 UK time. Here's the related post on the editor's blog.
I'll bet she is making a killing $$$$. Go around all day get infront of some building that was hit and start screaming and waving her hand and the air. I wonder if it is a like model shoot (remember this is the Islamic world....no supermodel babes allowed!).
"Your raving in that burqa!, wonderful, now come on the sad look...perfect!, Now look really scared!, Now come on you can do better then that!, Pretend your husband caught you outside with out the head gear, yes oh yes, perfect!, Thats a wrap!
You raving in that burqa!, wonderful, now come on the sad look...
Gor blimey - how come it has taken me so long to realise - it's the Widow Naseem!
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2006-08/07/01.shtml
Here's a cheap ruse, Hezbollah now has a Qana-II where children are exploited under the banner as "Orphans" .
But wait....the victims of Qana were said to be women and 30% children , we didn't hear one word about 'Fathers' in the rubble . so either
all the children didn't have a father or the victims were already orphans planted there and the survivors lost Daddy to Jihad as a suicide bomber for Hezbollah.
If the BBC as been proven to be biased then does the public who are forced by law to fund it regardless of whether they agree entitled to a refund?
Could a case be brought against the BBC for misrepresenting the facts that would allow a citizen to withhold a portion of the fee that equates to the BBC spending on the news?
Surely under the Human Rights Act, I am entitled to choose my news source, especially if that source could be seen as a psychological influence on children, that as been proven to be biased.
If I want a laugh then I buy the Guardian. If I want the facts then I buy none of the papers. The BBC is force fed into my home and I have no choice other than to turn off.
The BBC does great documentary and drama but it falls down on the news.
From August22: The media is run by journalists. In order to become a journalist, you must go to journalism school, you must get a degree in journalism. Journalism is a liberal art.
Because the US has a First Amendment, journalists are not licensed as other professionls. The regulations for a mainicurist are far more rigorous than for a journalist; there are no regulations for a journalist. Any one, and I mean anyone, can call themselves a journalist. These people are not licensed by the state in which they practice their trade, or spread their lies. They are not tested and are not governed by a state board as are doctors, engineers, lawyers, and dog groomers.
There is no requirement to go to college and get a degree in lying, er journalism. Perhaps that is the problem.
They have thus not addressed the larger problem of the extent to which what passes itself off as objective news coverage is actually just war propaganda
Worse then that, it is propaganda for the enemy that is dedicated to the destruction of the Christian world and the Christian faith.
and thus
BBC = Ban British Christianity.
I need to add: A bad doctor can have his license revoked by the board of examiners, and can no longer practice the bad medicine that caused him or her to lose their license. A bad journalist simply issues a half-assed retraction and goes on as if nothing happened. Dan Rather has no journalism license to lose.
Is this woman proud of the rocks and rubble
her jihadi husband and sons have given her?
Is this her reward
for being half a person?
for being a willing slave,
submitting to their will,
their beatings, cringing
from their wrath and harsh words?
Is she glad
she dedicated her life
to bringing infidels'death,
in the cause of allah?
Is she glad
she sacrificed her greatest gifts,
the love of a husband and children?
Oh yes,she exhults,
for their blood was shed,
by the sacred sword,
in the cause of allah.
How sad.
Stupidity has its place - Rod Liddle
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2300475,00.html
Rod's great.
Rejoice! The bombs are coming!
Why do the media always show these people in visible agony? Even Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora shed some tears, when reporting on the 39 'undead'. Shouldn't they be ululating with joy over all these martyrs going to their paradise? Why the fake tears? Or are they crying because they survived, and so must cope with the terrible mess they created? They should make up their minds. Are they happy at all those deaths, "we love death", are are they sad for all those deaths? Is the "I love death" stuff more "war is deceit"? I don't get it. Oh, well, too bad. The media should understand that they love death. They should be glad! Why the tears? Show pictures of them dancing and ululating with V signs for all the dead, just like they did when 911 was shown on their TV. Jump for joy Mulsims! Your boys and girls are going to paradise.
Battle of Tours, I think the muslims appreciate it better when THEY send their children to paradise, instead of infidels and Jews. I don't think they really CARE how they get there, it's WHO sends them.
Stupid muslims.
This is the latest CNN headline photo off their front page as of Monday 11:59 pm.
CNN photo
They never show a photo like that of an israeli child.
Face it. News editors are part of the jihad.
What kind of post-processing is acceptable for news photography? A professional news photographer weighs in:
http://theshapeofdays.com/2006/08/a_photojournalist_weighs_in_on_the_adnan.html
OT- Is there some reason I can't access the LGF archives? I can never get to read the stories if I miss them. Must a reader be a member to read archives? Anyone know?
I don't bother watching the BBCeera news any more but I do object to paying a licence fee. I wonder when it will sink in to the liberati that Islamists of the likes of Hiz, once they've finished their expansionist project in the ME, would start on the West too.
Re the Adnan Hajj altered photo--the idea that this was simple "dust removal" is absurd. I'm a graphic artist myself--certainly early in my career I accidently scratched photo negatives a few times, but it is simply not possible that this would result in the images of huge, dark grey clouds.
As for Photoshop--if you were not working with a negative (as you would not be in Photoshop) any attempt at dust removal, no matter *how inept*, would result in the *lightening*, not darkening of the image, either by "cutting out" the speck, erasing, etc.
It's clear that he was trying to make the fires in the photograph look more widespread by using "copy" and "paste", with a slight lightening of the second image. It's pretty inexpertly done. Obviously he was trying to make the damage in the photo look more extensive, either for political reasons or simply to make a more dramatic-looking photo. In any case, this is sometimes acceptable with advertising work, but this king of altering of an image is *never*acceptable in reputable journalism.
The woman in the picture looks like she is attacking.
I read through the BBC News nearly every day and I am always amazed at the pro-Jihad, anti-Israel bias.
I have written to them many times to no avail (they may too busy killing infidels).
I have also noticed this on several domestic (U.S.) radio and television talk and news programs.
All that evil needs to triumph is inaction on the part of the intended victims.
The level of denial, or is it complicity, is amazing!
Says another ideological moron. Get a clue. Wolf Blitzer was an AIPAC rep and is a Zionist. Anderson Cooper is 100% on the Israeli side, Lou Dobson is a conservative.. CNN was a major part of the Bush bandwagon for 2000 and 2004.
What you might object to is that they are not irrational, livid, radicals like Oreilly and Limbaugh and for the sake of credibility try to portray news from both sides of the event.
Cluephone: If a reporter in Lebanon or Iraq or any Muslim country was as livid, incensed, irrational and partisan as Oreilly and other fascists that you love, then they wouldn't last five minutes on the street.. but by playing or pretending to be impartial and let the Muzzies have their voice, they provide a service by being able to get access and thus intelligence information..
Right wingers are indeed low IQ, semi sentient morons.
Nariz wrote:
Cluephone: If a reporter in Lebanon or Iraq or any Muslim country was as livid, incensed, irrational and partisan as Oreilly and other fascists that you love, then they wouldn't last five minutes on the street.. but by playing or pretending to be impartial and let the Muzzies have their voice, they provide a service by being able to get access and thus intelligence information..
.............
Bill O'Reilly is a *news commentator*, not an on the ground reporter. A good commentator doesn't just report the news as it happens, but integrates the news and makes observations. You can certainly feel free to disagree with his conclusions (I often do myself), but do not confuse commentators, op-ed writers, columnists and pundits with reporters.
Sometimes these two functions do overlap, but generally they are pretty discreet. A reporter is supposed to be as objective as is humanly possible, and present the news without personal commentary. With a commentator, you *want* their opinions, though you may find their observations useful or not.