In previous wars, and especially seen in the Iraq shitstorm that was Desert Storm, a lot of stock/archive photography was used that was 'discovered' not to be the events reported. The news agencies defence was that they still 'reflected' the events even if they were not of the events themselves.
Looking at it from the news agencies point of view, they want pictures to go with stories. If they haven't got a photographer nearby or there are no indpendants in the area then the dramatic impact of the scene is essentially lost without pictures. Getting someone there late isn't much use either, as teh most dramatic pictures will be in teh immediate aftermath. So if it's a car bomb, solution - use a picture of another car bomb. Most people won't notice, and if they do, they can deal with it then.
However, there's no conspiracy here. It's a cynical ploy to sell more papers. That's all. It's lazy but it's not an anti-Israel plot.
On the subject of pictures containing childrens toys, I think it's pretty well known that Photographers stick them into scenes to make them more dramatic. The most well known case of this that I am aware of was with the Pan-Am Lockerbie tragedy where a jet crashed into the town of Lockerbie after a bomb went off on board. Onlookers was disgusted to see photographers scattering childrens toys, clothes and other belongings in the main wreckage site because everything was pretty much destroyed. It's the price tags that are the dead giveaway.


Reply With Quote