Iraqi woman lies her ass off - AFP happy to oblige

Iraqi woman shows two bullets that hit her house during a coalition raid.

What's wrong with this picture?

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070814/p...e988aa146f5f76

I've figured out why the US is making no headway in Iraq - it turns out we're just throwing bullets, instead of firing them from weapons!

In case someone at the AFP figures out that they are completely full of shit and takes it down, here is the picture and caption:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ult512x369.jpg

Quote:

---

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City.

---

Side note: Does anyone notice how similar these two patients look?

Has the AP revived the Making Shit Up Department, I wonder?


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ast_bag113.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ast_bag112.jpg

I see that the bandage on his head is exactly the same one on his arm. You think they would have at least not put the photos immediately next to each other in the slideshow.

EDIT: They were both also credited to Emad Matti.

I don't get what your point is about the two photos in your second post. I can't tell if they're the same person or not and the caption doesn't really tell us one way or the other.
If they were the same person, what does it mean? Are you suggesting the bombing didn't happen, or that noone died?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
I don't get what your point is about the two photos in your second post. I can't tell if they're the same person or not and the caption doesn't really tell us one way or the other.
If they were the same person, what does it mean? Are you suggesting the bombing didn't happen, or that noone died?

---

Did I ever say that? I don't believe I did. Nor did I even imply it. I am sure the bombing did occur - especially since I posted a thread about that precise topic. I would also be willing to bet against all comers that the second pair of photographs was staged with the same kid in each one.

Are you implying that the AP has not been popped before for doctoring and staging photographs? It seems like you are trying to make the case that since an event did occur, it is permissible for the press to stage some photographs that may or may not depict what actually happened.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
Are you implying that the AP has not been popped before for doctoring and staging photographs? It seems like you are trying to make the case that since an event did occur, it is permissible for the press to stage some photographs that may or may not depict what actually happened.

---

AP has been caught many times with doctored and staged photos. I agree that any misinformation is a bad thing because we can't possibly have informed opinions if our opinions aren't based on the truth.
I want to know though, what would it mean if these two photos were of the same man? It doesn't look to me like the photographer implied one way or the other whether they were (the captions are unclear) it doesn't look like AP implied anything in particular, and as you said the two photos were side by side. I am not being hostile, I just don't get your point is all.

It's a simple matter of journalistic integrity. The first photo is obviously a massive crock of bullshit.

The following pair of photographs depicts first a boy being treated for a wound on his right arm, and second the same kid with the bandage on his arm having been transposed to his head.

That does not unsettle you even a little bit, that the AFP would so brazenly run a couple bullshit photographs? I don't know how you feel on the matter, but I believe that the media's purpose is to deliver information to an audience, not stage fake medical shots for "think of the children" shock value.

Addendum: Original link no longer works.

More from the AFP:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...739497cf6c.jpg

In the first picture the boy is still being treated, on my monitor his forehead is so dark that I can't see if anything is wrong with it, but when I first saw the photo I thought there was blood his forehead and just assumed (if it was the same boy) that it got bandaged in the 2nd photo. I can't see the top of the boys arm in the 2nd photo so I have no idea whether he still has a bandage on there or not.

Are you sure the two women in those photos are the same?

Does it upset me that AP regularly runs staged or photoshopped photos? Yes, it upsets me when a news source that I had relied on in the past fucks up (for what it's worth, I can't think of a news source that hasn't).

But I'm no more upset by these specific (the two boys) photographs (even if they're total inventions and bogus) than I was by Bush standing with his glazed turkey in Iraq. Neither set would be used as evidence that something happened exactly thus. Nobody is relying on these photographs to prove an event occurred.

The second photograph is a similar story, which I thought I included at the bottom but apparently did not. I can't see the woman enough to tell if she is the same.

As for the second photo, the bandage in the first picture wraps around the kid's tricep enough to be able to see it from the angle in the second picture were it the same person. There is also the fact that the bandage slapped on his head is exactly the same as the one on the arm. I would also point out simple things like the fact that if the kid were the same, the IV stand would be on the opposite side as he had an insertion point on his right forearm in the first picture.

I do not see how you equate this with Bush and a turkey - this is a faked injury to a child created for dramatic effect and an outright lie that any reasonably intelligent person can discern (referring to the first and last pictures with the bullets - willing to leave margin of error on the second set).

I'm missing something. What happened with Bush and a turkey?

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this. Is it possible that this is a mistake of an overeager photographer who just got played by some people wanting to get their pics published? Or are you saying that it's definitely the AP going out and setting up these shots?

Granted, either way, the AP is making itself extremely unreliable as a news source for 1) not doing their research or 2) outright lying in the photos. Still, I wonder if the photographers are innocent, but they are getting sucked in by the locals.

Quote:

---

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this. Is it possible that this is a mistake of an overeager photographer who just got played by some people wanting to get their pics published? Or are you saying that it's definitely the AP going out and setting up these shots?

---

Really, I was more trying to make the point that I believe certain news agencies to have negative credibility due to pictures of the sort I exhibited being published and never recanted on or apologized for.

I do not believe "the AP" actually went out and staged these photographs - they generally tend to buy them from "freelancers" who are essentially nothing more than locals with cameras. It appears that more and more often, these photographs are staged.

This is a site that deals with the photo fraud that went on during the Israel-Lebanon conflict:

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

A quick search for AP-specific stuff turned up this (WARNING - GRAPHIC):

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/7786

Really, this was more of a critique of the newsgathering agencies and the methods by which they create, rather than report, the news. That, and how they seemingly get a free pass to do this over and over and over again.

As a regular reader of MM and LGF (amongst others) I followed the "fauxtography" scandals of the Lebanon war and AP pretty closely. Now in the case of the smoke photoshopping, that photographer was sacked, Reuters apologized, and it was front page news across the world so you can't say they got a free pass. They didn't.
Other scandals - such as Qana, the green helmet guy, or the ambulance, were never conclusively proved by zombie or EU referendum, and frankly the whole thing was a bit sickening to my way of thinking since the bombings actually happened and the victims actually died.

To be honest, I stopped listening to the media a long time ago in regards to the middle-eastern conflicts.

Having a good number of friends either in, or recently returned from active service in that area, I am disgusted at the kind of hype and sensationalist bullshit that is presented as balanced journalism.

Photographs are frequently staged, and it's not considered a problem. You get a photo of someone cutting a birthday cake - the shot wasn't taken right as the knife was descending, the action was frozen to allow the photo to be composed. Also, I'm told advertising photos of ice creams often have to use mashed potato, lest the ice cream melt. So what's the difference here?

Either an event did happen, or it didn't. If it didn't, then faking photos to try to prove that it did is outright deceit. But if it all really happened, then it might just be that there are no good photos of the "real thing", so they turn to staged shots in the interests of adding something to the story.

The main problem is that the fakes are flawed, to the extent that it's instantly obvious. If they'd managed to get shots that look right, nobody would have known they were fake, and nobody would complain. The problem, in the public eye, is not being lied to - it's KNOWING they're being lied to. Okay, I'm intensely cynical regarding the media, but I don't EVER consider a newspaper photo or news clip to be a guarantee of anything.

Quote:

---

Other scandals - such as Qana, the green helmet guy, or the ambulance, were never conclusively proved by zombie or EU referendum, and frankly the whole thing was a bit sickening to my way of thinking since the bombings actually happened and the victims actually died.

---

You do not believe that a completely staged photo, replete with injured or dead children, corpses, dramatic-effect pictorials, and non-factual information in the aftermath of such an event tends to cheapen the actual impact of the event itself? I would hope that is the reason you are sickened - being brazenly misled by the media in the wake of such things is disgusting, though not necessarily moreso than the event itself.

I cannot speak to the Qana or Green Helmet bit as I have not seen the bits as to how they may have been staged, but I can tell you with all the authority I can muster that the ambulance I believe you are referring to was not hit by a rocket. Common sense should tell you the same - no rocket makes a perfect circle and then leaves the ambulance itself untouched, much the same way as no slug gets fired at a house with the casing still attached. It offends me deeply that a news agency would pass this 'story' off for general public consumption because it is so very obvious in its falseness. I expect stories and pictures to be slanted toward the individual viewpoint of the journalist and/or agency, but not simply created out of nothing.

EDIT: In the interests of bandwidth, I won't put up any more pictures. The ambulance hit by a "rocket" is shown here.

Quote:

---

Also, I'm told advertising photos of ice creams often have to use mashed potato, lest the ice cream melt. So what's the difference here?

---

What is the difference between mashed potatoes used as ice cream in advertising and the manipulation of a corpse for a faked up photo/outright lie passed off as news? orly?

Perhaps it is because to utilize a corpse in such a manner is an affront to human decency and disrespectful to the deceased. Perhaps that it is not supposed to be the function of a news agency to advertise. Perhaps because representing such simple lies as genuine events is offensive to everyone who would actually watch the news? Take your pick.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
What is the difference between mashed potatoes used as ice cream in advertising and the manipulation of a corpse for a faked up photo/outright lie passed off as news? orly?

---

Yea, I'm going to have to agree with Darion here. I don't usually look at ice cream advertisements (and I'm sure I'm not speaking for just myself) and feel any sense of emotion whatsoever. Pictures of some of the horror taking place in Iraq and elsewhere, that does evoke an emotional response and the fact that some of the photos are staged completely cheapens it. There is enough BAD going on in the world that photographers don't have to fake or stage photos in order to gain sympathy from people for whats going on. Photography is a powerful medium. I don't think its right for it to be abused in these cases.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
What is the difference between mashed potatoes used as ice cream in advertising and the manipulation of a corpse for a faked up photo/outright lie passed off as news? orly?

---

Lying with photography is lying regardless of the subject matter. I've gotten to the point where I no longer care about media lies - I *know* they're almost certainly lying, so it doesn't worry me when they get found out.

Is it wrong to deliberately pose people to improve the dramatic impact of a photo? Probably not. Is it wrong, then, to pose someone _else_, because the actual victim(s) do not wish to hang around and get photographed? It's not actually all that different.

Actually, part of the reason I don't care about faked photos is that I don't watch the graphic media. Important news is always available in text format, and in text it's easier to sort fact from lie. *shrug*

So you draw a moral equivalence between "say cheese" at a photo op and "slap a bandage on that kid's head, it will look more impressive than area shots" at the aftermath of a bombing. That is certainly an interesting way of thinking.

Quote:

---

Actually, part of the reason I don't care about faked photos is that I don't watch the graphic media. Important news is always available in text format, and in text it's easier to sort fact from lie. *shrug*

---

Interesting you would say that, as without the original picture in this thread there would be no way from sorting fact from lie. It would simply be taken for granted that a woman's home was hit with some bullets fired by coalition forces. Does the fact that someone's house somewhere was probably struck with bullets during a gunfight make a difference in that they are creating news in the manner it might have occurred? I still say it does.

Quote:

---

Is it wrong to deliberately pose people to improve the dramatic impact of a photo? Probably not. Is it wrong, then, to pose someone _else_, because the actual victim(s) do not wish to hang around and get photographed? It's not actually all that different.

---

I see you did not follow the link that showed the blatant posing, moving, and posing again of headless, bloody corpses in front of four or five children. Where is the moral equivalence line drawn?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
What's wrong with this picture?

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070814/p...e988aa146f5f76

---

Besides the obvious, isn't this the same woman who had her house blown up... two separate ways on two separate occasions?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leoryn
Besides the obvious, isn't this the same woman who had her house blown up... two separate ways on two separate occasions?

---

Who knows? It is pointless to continue to point out other faked news, however, as the AP's credibility is already generally agreed-upon as nil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
much the same way as no slug gets fired at a house with the casing still attached.

---

There is another reason this specific example bothers me, and makes me very distrustful of the way wars are being reported.

I have never been in the military. The only guns I have ever fired are a couple .22 rifles and a few shotguns. In other words, I know very little about guns.

But as soon as I saw that picture, I knew that was a brand spankin' new unfired round.

The fact that the reporters did not know this means they are WOEFULLY undereducated about the subject matter upon which they are reporting. That means they are there just as zealots rather than journalists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
So you draw a moral equivalence between "say cheese" at a photo op and "slap a bandage on that kid's head, it will look more impressive than area shots" at the aftermath of a bombing. That is certainly an interesting way of thinking.

---

Not equivalence. It's more of a spectrum. And if, as others have suggested, the photos are selected from offerings by local photographers, and quite possibly the selection is done by people with more journalistic than ballistic skill, then it's easy to see how problems can crop up.

Quote:

---

Not equivalence. It's more of a spectrum. And if, as others have suggested, the photos are selected from offerings by local photographers, and quite possibly the selection is done by people with more journalistic than ballistic skill, then it's easy to see how problems can crop up.

---

This is fine, if the publication is some two-bit asswipe tabloid in a supermarket stand. But these are supposedly reputable publications. Publications which are referenced in our bodies of government.

To bring the example home, Rosuav, watch a senate proceeding. Make a note every time a media publication is inferenced in a question or challenge. These are publications read and watched by our members of parliament. Do you really want the people running the country to be influenced by lies? Do you really want their time wasted in VERIFYING what is truth in publication, when it is theoretically the responsibility of the publications' EDITORS to be actually doing their fucking job and ENSURING that the material in the publication is, as far as can be assured, true?

Is it too much to ask for a little responsibility on the part of the messenger? A channel 9 news presenter scoffed a challenge like that off today with 'Shoot the messenger, why don't you?'. My answer to her and her ilk is "How about giving us the correct fucking message, then maybe you won't get shot?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Not equivalence. It's more of a spectrum.

---

So, it's not equivalence. It's a spectrum... of... equivalence...?

Quote:

---

And if, as others have suggested, the photos are selected from offerings by local photographers, and quite possibly the selection is done by people with more journalistic than ballistic skill, then it's easy to see how problems can crop up.

---

Ballistic skill has nothing to do with anything. There are a countless number of people out there that have never seen a gun - these people will still understand that the story reported by the AFP is an out-and-out lie. All you have to do is watch an episode of CSI, and lord knows they have sixteen versions airing constantly. This is far beyond simple mistakes slipping through the cracks here and there.

No, you see, the photos are purchased from people hired as freelancers by news agencies. They essentially abuse internet contacts to come up with photos from a certain area without actually having to go there. Freelancers tend to be locals, as actual AP/AFP/whoever jounalists have a nasty habit of getting kidnapped on a reasonably consistent basis. This is sometimes unavoidable due to stupidity. Thus, the freelancers are generally content to stage some photos and attempt to perpetuate the jihad of the tongue via obviously faked-up nonsense. The AP/AFP are pleased to buy them, because it beats being accosted by masked men at gunpoint, having your interpreter murdered in front of you, and being held hostage.