Iraqi woman lies her ass off - AFP happy to oblige

[Dalaena]

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.

[Darion]

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.

[Malacasta]

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.

[Maelgrim]

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.

[Rosuav]

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.

[Darion]

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.

[Darion]

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.

[Nephrys]

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.

[Rosuav]

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*

[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.

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.

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?