Yesterday I made a brief post at Samizdata to highlight a post from Drinking From Home concerning two pictures of a woman lamenting the destruction of her home by the Israelis. The pictures have different dates, and show different homes, but are pretty obviously same woman. What do I find when glancing at DFH this morning? That one of the pictures turns up on the BBC. And that was spotted by our regular commenter Dave t of the Cabarfeidh Pages. An anonymous commenter to DFH’s post says he/she may have found another Reuters picture of a third destroyed home with the same lady lamenting in front of it. It is difficult to be sure, but I think I can see the same scar on her left cheek and mark under her right eye. Small world, all these bloggers quoting each other in circles, all one’s homes getting busted up by the Israelis.
To be clear, I don’t particularly blame the BBC for using the picture (although it will be interesting to see if they continue using it given the attention it has received). Thousands of pictures come their way, they can’t check them all. I don’t even blame Reuters/AP that much, for the same reason – although I do think all the news agencies need to face the fact that their Arab stringers who actually go out and take the pictures have their own agenda and aren’t generally too scrupulous about how they advance it. However any time information from, say, the US, British or Israeli Army is relayed by the BBC we hear someone dolefully informing us that this information has a particular source and implying that we must bear that in mind when assessing it. Likewise if a report is made from a country with a repressive government we are told that the report was made under restrictions. Quite right too. But no such warnings come with photos or statements from people living in in places where the rule of Hamas or Hezbollah is at least as vicious, and the culture at least as steeped in propaganda, as that of most of the world’s open dictatorships.
ADDED LATER: Incidentally, the issue of photo-doctoring is becoming a story in itself. One of our commenters snapped a Google search of stories on the issue. Keep your eyes peeled for how and if the BBC reports it.
UPDATE: The picture is now gone from the BBC story DFH linked to. As usual the “last edited” field has not been changed; it still reads 14.07 BST Saturday. There is a discussion of photo-doctoring on the BBC’s The Editors blog here.
This picture?:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=208885095&size=o
Natalie, you say:
To be clear, I don’t particularly blame the BBC for using the picture (although it will be interesting to see if they continue using it given the attention it has received). Thousands of pictures come their way, they can’t check them all. I don’t even blame Reuters/AP that much, for the same reason – although I do think all the news agencies need to face the fact that their Arab stringers who actually go out and take the pictures have their own agenda and aren’t generally too scrupulous about how they advance it.
I disagree. When al-BBC/al-Reuters etc use a photograph, they are using it in their own name. When they use Arab stringers, they are duty bound to ensure said stringers’ work. They can’t use photographs as a tool to illustrate a story and then dissassociate themselves from that material when it’s shown to be faked or misleading. When they use material they use it in their own name.
I complained, having taken a screen shot so we’ll see if they change the picture.
I do love the way the article combines farce with propaganda….
Hugh is sitting at a cafe smoking a hubble bubble at the same time as claiming to hear an Israeli aircraft and then has a young man who obviously knows who he is leaning across and calling the Iraelis terrorists as well!
Amazing that he knows the difference twixt Israeli and other aircraft (an American U-2 from RAF Akrotiri has been taking off most nights and heading for Lebanon and then onto Iraq/Afghanistan…) and that complete strangers pass handy comments that tally with his warped world view to him without asking!
And what is it with the children’s homes rather than childrens’ homes? No grammar checker at the Hezbolloah Internet cafe dear boy? Twit.
dave t,
I hate to ask this question, but what’s wrong with children’s homes?
Is this possibly another fake Reuters photo?
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/08/lebanon-still-more-fake-reuters-photos.html
Maybe someone out there with photo imaging skills can enhance and compare the two.
Bryan, “Children’s” is a singular posessive, which might make sense of “children” as a noun used in a singular sense (like Graham/Graham’s) however it’s a collective noun which requires the plural posessive “childrens’s”, conventionally shortened to “childrens'” as the final ‘s’ us silent.
Or, to look at it from my example, you couldn’t use “Grahams’ homes” unless there were a lot of people all called Graham living there. Or someone called Mr Grahams, but in that case it would keep the apostrophe’d s. It’s a grammar thing.
While Browsing through Reuters aplogies – after having received one for my compaints about their the photos. I came accorss the following apology
Will the BBC apologise for similar articles ?
http://today.reuters.com/news/GBUStories.aspx
55 killed as Israel blockades Lebanon
BEIRUT (Reuters) – Israel blockaded Lebanese ports and struck Beirut airport and two military airbases on Thursday, expanding reprisals that have killed 55 civilians in Lebanon since Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers a day earlier.
Nowhere in this article from your Website does it mention that Hizbollah carried out a cross border attack, fired Katyusha rockets at Israeli population centers and fired at civilian homes in the incident in which it abducted the two soldiers on Israeli soil on Wednesday.
Nowhere does it mention that Israel withdrew to the international borders in 2000 and that the international community has long demanded that the Lebanese government disarm Hizbollah and prevent its forces from deploying in the south.
This bias is letting down Reuters readers. It is downgrading the Reuters product. And perhaps most perturbing of all • it is letting down investors who depend on Reuters as a source of financial advise.
This all began with an unprovoked Hizbollah attack on sovereign Israeli soil against civilian as well as military targets. This should not be forgotten, ignored or downplayed in your articles, which is currently the case.
J. L.
This news item did not contain sufficient background and fell short of our own demanding standards. Our stories on major news like the crisis in the Middle East are updated in real time throughout the day, and subsequent versions more fully explained the circumstances: Editor
I’m not entirely convinced that the third image is the same woman, but I could be wrong.
Is AFP joining in on Photogate?
Check this out.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/08/lebanon-photogate-afp-joins-in.html
“And perhaps most perturbing of all • it is letting down investors who depend on Reuters as a source of financial advise.”
i love that bit. reminding them who their shareholders or customers are.
that the beauty of a private organisation, operating within a free marketplace – you can put leverage on them.
unlike the bbc , which is free to do as it pleases.
archonix wrote:
Bryan, “Children’s” is a singular posessive [sic], which might make sense of “children” as a noun used in a singular sense (like Graham/Graham’s) however it’s a collective noun which requires the plural posessive “childrens’s”, conventionally shortened to “childrens'” as the final ‘s’ us silent.[end of quote]
That’s a lot of nonsense, archonix.
‘Children’ is a plural noun. It doesn’t take an additional ‘s’ to become ‘childrens’. It’s *already* plural. Hence the genitive is correctly given as ‘children’s’. Bryan was right in raising the issue because the original remark was wrong.
Do a little google and see how many childrens’ you get…
“‘Children’ is a plural noun. It doesn’t take an additional ‘s’ to become ‘childrens’. It’s *already* plural.”
That is what I was about to write.
Is this the same woman that was photographed crying by the side of the wall built by Isreal?
I did some google image searching but I couldn’t find the particular image.
It was quite famous and was used by the BBC.
Umm. doubt it. Either she’s got some new clothes or has lost a bit of weight.
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1073777/posts
http://www.kerenmalki.org/From_IsraelInsider.htm
shame that.
Next time this grouchy old English teacher makes a comment about the lack of correct grammar in a BBC report, I will dive for cover at the same time!
Hughie Boy was talking about childrens’ plural homes plural hence my comment. At the same time it had absolutely bugger all to do with the statement or article in hand so why did he add it?
After seeing what’s gone on over the weekend with regard Reuters and AP, i’m starting to come to the conclusion that the beeb is the least of our problems.
Glynn Jones,
Reuters doesn’t threaten 30,000 people a month, the BBC does.
These are serious accusations.
You have reminded me that the BBC still hasn’t responded though to the way it reported the stagemanaged event of “toppling Saddam’s statue” in Baghdad as if it were a real event attended by more then 20 or 30 of Chilabi supporters and a few US soldiers.
Actually the BBC is rather shoddy with its photographs, as others have long pointed out.
(Link to article showing the use of the same photograph of a wild boar to depict BBC stories on wild boars in Scotland, Warwickshire, Hertfordshire, Gloucestershire, and even Berlin!)
But yet again they changed things without admitting it…editing by stealth only serves to confirm the impression that there was something wrong in the first place!
That’s a lot of nonsense, archonix.
Hang on a moment… *looks for the stealth edit button*
Aww. It’s not there. Now I can’t pretend I didn’t make a mistake.
Could you put it a bit nicer next time? I’m in a very stressful situation regarding projects and it makes me feel so sad when I’m wrong… 😉
Natalie,
The BBC may get sent loads of pictures but it has a responsibility as a broadcaster to check the ones it uses. As the probably get their images from something like Getty Images they are more than likely to have seem both images when they ran a search.
fox have picked up the story.
javascript:newVideo(‘080706/080706_connor_photo’,’FNL’,’Altered%20Photo’,’World’,’-1′);
sorry i did that wrong,just head for their site.i’ll go and get my coat.
I have just got in from work, so I apologise if this has been covered already.
Regarding doctoring information.
On Radio Four this morning we were treated to a strange recording which was accompanied with a disclaimer.
The item was used to bolster a description of the ‘bombardment’ of Beirut.
It was a recording of constant explosions, BUT, before it was played the disclaimer said…”THIS RECORDING HAS BEEN CONDENSED”, and then afterwards, the presenter said, “This continued for another one and a half hours”.
No it didn’t!
If the sound we heard had continued for one and a half hours, there would have been nothing left of Beirut.
Why did the BBC ‘condense’ the clip?
It is a simple distortion of the truth, and next time there might not be a disclaimer beforehand.
I wonder if any right-wing murderous despots will get the same semi-adulatory article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5243500.stm
I particularly liked the phrase:
“He rails against the United States, its economic and trade embargo and against the evils of free markets”
The writer doesn’t even put “the evils of free markets” in the scare quotes the BBC usually uses with liberal abandon, e.g. in phrases such as “so-called ‘family values'”. Obviously it is an undeniable fact that free markets are evil. That’s why the poor, oppressed people of the capitalist world are wealthy beyond the dreams of those crushed by Communism in Cuba.
Well the free market worked for Castro with his estimated $900 MILLION fortune….
Israel “bombards” the Lebanon, Hizbullah merely fire rockets at Israel. Standard use of loaded words from the BBC, spinning their subtle bias still further. Still, at least we are spared any claims that Hizbullah’s rockets are “home-made” and hence by implication less effective.
Rob
The BBC may well speak of the evils of free markets, for it knows if one were to actually exist in British TV-land, the BBC would quickly sink without a trace.
Free market = kiss of death for the BBC.
Vi Ville Vinne
My Norwegian ain’t what it used to be, but lets face it we’ve been at WWIII (Islam versus Rest of the World) for I recon about 15 years without realising it – It will continue for about another 50, me thinks.
We must keep up the war effort in every way possible.
Dah dadada Dah…
Dave T wrote;
Amazing that he knows the difference twixt Israeli and other aircraft (an American U-2 from RAF Akrotiri has been taking off most nights and heading for Lebanon and then onto Iraq/Afghanistan…)
Without appearing to be a jobs worth dave. The Israeli do have total air superiority in the region. The last time an Arab air force came out to play it was 80 to 1 to the jews(which was shot down from the ground) F16, F15Es loiter and await instructions from UAV operators they tend to stay just above the Sam umbrella. But they can be heard. U2s tend to stick to the very high ground and cannot be heard.
Add Aya Nik and Trodos across the water, Elint planes from across the water such as this which don’t have to fly over the target area
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=100
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jstars/
And hey lets not forget this little British beauty which has now has the perfect opportunity in which to gain a little combat experience but without the combat;
http://www.raytheon.co.uk/what_we_do/astor.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/astor/
Then there are the (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) MALES and HALES (high-altitude, long-endurance) operating in the area.
Hey I can’t help it if I’m a spotter.
pounce: in your case you know what you’re talking about unlike most trainspotters…
I HATE the U2 – noisy jet engine on a broomstick basically – they used to air test the damm things on a Sunday morning! Lovely holidays at daughter’s in RAF Akrotiri but not a lot of lie ins…..
I brought up the children’s home point because I figured that we bash the BBC hard enough when they are wrong and therefore don’t also have to bash them when they are right!
Now there certainly ain’t no such thing as childrens or childrens’. I think it’s possible that the apostrophe will fall away in the course of time to describe things such as children’s homes, but Googling the latter reveals that people are still happily inserting it. Before the ‘s’, of course.
Dave wrote;
“Lovely holidays at daughter’s in RAF Akrotiri but not a lot of lie ins…..”
Never liked Akrotiri much.
(Far too many mosquitoes off the saltpans.)
Dhekelia man myself.(Did my tour there)
And the Mess (unlike the one at WSBA) is right on the seafront.
I did spend a night at the mess at Akrotiri a few years ago, but it was only transit.
And yes I did get to hear Bono flying his toy plane.
(Ask your daughter what the Cyprus walk about is, I did it in 1994)
So did she with the Akrotiri Swallows – the female rugby team – don’t ask why they call themselves that…. now posted from Akrotiri to High Wycombe – at least I get cheap B and B outside London now!
here’s Kofi Annan using Cana to imply that Israel is guilty of war crimes. The BBC repeated Annan’s remarks today.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007746.php
Ah yes, Dhekelia is much the place to be. Too many fly boys at Akrotiri and not nearly close enough to Ayia Napa for a good night out. I say ‘good night out’, but I’ve been led to believe there’s been something of a clampdown on those in the last few years. Something to do with good nights out becoming very good nights out.