• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

Gill said:
Ahh, of course.... all that red stuff on the Israeli soldier is lipstick from one of the "peace" passengers aboard the ship.
Click to expand...

Yes -- it's in both pictures. Try to keep up...
 
How am I wrong?

For one, I didn't claim such facts. I said this is what Isreal has been reporting concerning why they've formed the blockade.

For another, the raid was reported by several national and international news agencies. Isreali commandos did board the Mavi Marmara. How is that fact incorrect?

Isreali commandos were injured; the picture clearly shows a man in "commando-style" uniform laying on the deck of the ship bleeding does it not?

The cropped photo does show atleast one person holding a knife...yes?

Turkey has been claiming that their men were onboard as peacekeepers, not soilders or terrorist. So, doesn't it beg the question that if they were unarmed why would one of them be holding a knife while standing before an injured Isreali soilder?

So, what facts are incorrect?
 
Objective Voice said:
The commandos prepelled down onto the ship via helicopter and opened fire on those they suspected of being part of the PLO or working with them.
Click to expand...
1) The soldiers didn't open fire until very late into the operation, when the soldiers were fired on.
The soldiers were equipped with non-lethal equipment and a pistol to be used only in the danger of life.
2) The IDF doesn't simply shoot people it believes are members of the PLO.
2) What does the PLO has to do with anything about the flotilla's interception? Nothing at all.
Now, to put things in perspective, there are two issues in questions:

1) Did the Isreali commandos board the Mavi Marmara in international waters or while it was in Isreali waters?
Click to expand...
International waters of course. International law allows the boarding/attacking of a ship in international waters if its declared purpose is to run a blockade and if it was warned before it.
2) Were the Turkish men onboard the Mavi Marmara unarmed peacekeepers or were they armed and working with the Palestinian resistance?
Click to expand...
A large group of people on the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish "pleasure" ship, are members of the IHH organization. This organization is believed by many, including the USA, Israel, and a Danish resarch institute to be having ties to terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

The rest of your comment, the parts I haven't quoted, I agree with wholeheartedly.
 
lizzie said:
Because it improves the victimhood status of the "activists".
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Are we talking about Reuter's the organization or someone working on this particular story who made an editorial decision based on personal bias? There have been several posters claiming Reuter's has a record of doing this -- but none include links.

Also, photos are always cropped to fit a particular template for publication. The idea is to show as much visual information as possible.

Lastly, in the cropped photo you can clearly see the bloody solider, unarmed, being held down by the activists; the cropped version makes it look like he's kicking and fighting for his life. This in no way makes the activist look like victims--it almost achieves the opposite.
 
Apocalypse said:
1) The soldiers didn't open fire until very late into the operation, when the soldiers were fired on.
The soldiers were equipped with non-lethal equipment and a pistol to be used only in the danger of life.
2) The IDF doesn't simply shoot people it believes are members of the PLO.
2) What does the PLO has to do with anything about the flotilla's interception? Nothing at all.
International waters of course. International law allows the boarding/attacking of a ship in international waters if its declared purpose is to run a blockade and if it was warned before it.
A large group of people on the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish "pleasure" ship, are members of the IHH organization. This organization is believed by many, including the USA, Israel, and a Danish resarch institute to be having ties to terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

The rest of your comment, the parts I haven't quoted, I agree with wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. As I said, I wasn't claiming anything as facts...merely stating what has been out there in the media. Glad you were able to shed some light on the subject especially considering your location.

Thanks...much appreciated.
 
hazlnut said:
Also, photos are always cropped to fit a particular template for publication. The idea is to show as much visual information as possible.
Click to expand...

I see significantly less visual information in the cropped photo. No knife, less blood on the person who is standing over the soldier. There's not much other information of any consequence. A pair of feet and ankles, some type of tubing, no faces except for the blurred out Israeli's face (unless there's one I didn't notice).

hazlnut said:
Lastly, in the cropped photo you can clearly see the bloody solider, unarmed, being held down by the activists; the cropped version makes it look like he's kicking and fighting for his life. This in no way makes the activist look like victims--it almost achieves the opposite.
Click to expand...

I don't see that there appears to be any kicking in either photo. Left leg flexed, right leg extended straight out.
 
hazlnut said:
Fair enough. Are we talking about Reuter's the organization or someone working on this particular story who made an editorial decision based on personal bias? There have been several posters claiming Reuter's has a record of doing this -- but none include links.
Click to expand...

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
...A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage. The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors....

Reuters Caught with Doctored Lebanon Photo.... Again
...You would think that Reuters learned its lesson about publishing to the world photos doctored to create a false image. After all, they were caught with multiple false photos from Lebanon, and had to take down more than 900 images from one stringer. Reuters promised it would have "experienced editors" look at all such photos in the future. Has Reuters kept that promise? Apparently not.

Your Weekly Dose of Reuters Bias

and so forth. i mean, is this really surprising to anyone?
 
PeteEU said:
Hey not my fault your media are pathetic in reporting the facts. That the US media gobbles up every word the IDF states is not my fault. Ever heard of balanced reporting? We get that in Europe.. we get reports from both sides and get to make up our own minds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, us hillbillies here in the good ole US of A don't have access to Reuters. That explains the fact that Americans in this thread have seen the Reuters photos in question.
 
hazlnut said:
Lastly, in the cropped photo you can clearly see the bloody solider, unarmed, being held down by the activists; the cropped version makes it look like he's kicking and fighting for his life. This in no way makes the activist look like victims--it almost achieves the opposite.
Click to expand...

In both photos, what I see is non-murderous activists intervening on the soldier's behalf when they realized that some 'activists' on board were actually bent on murder and the chatter beforehand wasn't just rhetoric. The (would-be) murderers, being unable to turn on their actual-activist escorts, stand by and hope they've struck a fatal blow.

I think some of the activists said "no, we are not executing people", or at least I hope they did at some point(s) during the event. Perhaps the 'activist' casualties are concentrated in other areas of the boat and not at this location.

I think some people are helping him. Noone is kicking or hitting him, and he doesn't show capability of any real resistence. But he lived, we know that. If they're attacking him, how does he live? If they were intent to kill him, it would be impossible to shoot them all before they do.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
In both photos, what I see is non-murderous activists intervening on the soldier's behalf when they realized that some 'activists' on board were actually bent on murder and the chatter beforehand wasn't just rhetoric. The (would-be) murderers, being unable to turn on their actual-activist escorts, stand by and hope they've struck a fatal blow.

I think some of the activists said "no, we are not executing people", or at least I hope they did at some point(s) during the event. Perhaps the 'activist' casualties are concentrated in other areas of the boat and not at this location.

I think they are helping him. Noone is kicking or hitting him, and he doesn't show capability of any real resistence. But he lived, we know that.
Click to expand...

That's a thought. Hopefully, it's true.
 
Omfg!

Until I saw that cropped photo, I thought the whole affair was the result of a lot of pig-headed people in an ugly situation. But once I saw that cropped photo, I realized that it was entirely the fault of the pig-headed Israelis. But now that I saw the uncropped photo I realized it was entirely the fault of the pig-headed people on the ship.
Wow, it's just so freaking amazing the power of that one single photo. Totally changed my entire world view in re the ME. OMFG!

Or maybe not. Maybe I still think its all the result of a bunch of hardheaded morons on the other side of the planet.
 
cpwill said:
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
...A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage. The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors....

Reuters Caught with Doctored Lebanon Photo.... Again
...You would think that Reuters learned its lesson about publishing to the world photos doctored to create a false image. After all, they were caught with multiple false photos from Lebanon, and had to take down more than 900 images from one stringer. Reuters promised it would have "experienced editors" look at all such photos in the future. Has Reuters kept that promise? Apparently not.

Your Weekly Dose of Reuters Bias

and so forth. i mean, is this really surprising to anyone?
Click to expand...

Two -- are you serious??

Example #1 states 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.'

I guess you didn't bother to read the entire article.

Example #2 'Newsbusters':roll: - they describe a photo that has had the color altered, but don't include the photo... FAIL.

So, one possible example, really, of cropping by an individual.

Come back when you have 50 documented examples of specific cropping, that's a pattern of behavior.

Otherwise you just sound like a far-rightie doing the 'liberal media' paranoia dance... very tiresome.
 
hazlnut said:
Two -- are you serious??

Example #1 states 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.'

I guess you didn't bother to read the entire article.

Example #2 'Newsbusters':roll: - they describe a photo that has had the color altered, but don't include the photo... FAIL.

So, one possible example, really, of cropping by an individual.

Come back when you have 50 documented examples of specific cropping, that's a pattern of behavior.

Otherwise you just sound like a far-rightie doing the 'liberal media' paranoia dance... very tiresome.
Click to expand...

50 times?!? :rofl It take 50 times for your to notice a pattern?

Let me ask you question: Your spouse cheats on you. Do you wait for her to do it 50 times, to establish a pattern?
 
soccerboy22 said:
If this is only the second or third time I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Reuters and saying that is might have been an honest mistake. Although if they have a long history of doing things like this than shame on them and it would be hard to disprove the fact it might have been political.
Click to expand...

It takes effort to edit out a knife. This wasn't an honest mistake.
 
Despite being too lazy to read this entire thread, I have a comment to make:

Context, my friends…Context.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea unlike you who believe every word that comes out of the IDF and the pro-Israeli lobby.. like Israel does not torture.. ups,.. Or Israel does not use human shields.. ups...
Click to expand...

Torture is good if it saves American, British, and Israeli lives.
 
Gill said:
Here you go.


Reuters admits altering Beirut photo - Israel News, Ynetnews


Reuters Investigation Leads To Dismissal Of Editor | Middle East > Israel from AllBusiness.com

Here is a number of others from the war that were doctored by the same photographer for Reuters.
Click to expand...
In all cases, I see specific people who tried to slip a fake photo in and were caught and fired by Reuters who 'fessed up immediately, apologized, and blacklisted the photographers and editors in question.

I'm failing to see the fault of Reuters, somebody they employed screwed up and they rectified the problem and came clean.

And nobody has yet answered me when I asked WHY Reuters would doctor the photo in the OP. What the motivation would be.
 
I really think Reuters screwed up in this, but they came clean about the incident once they found out about it. They have honest people among them at least I give them credit on that. However I have never noticed a pattern for Reuters unlike what I have seen with FOX NEWS, and MSNBC. Thought I might not have been paying attention really closely to Reuters like I tend to do for Fox News, and MSNBC.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
I really think Reuters screwed up in this, but they came clean about the incident once they found out about it. They have honest people among them at least I give them credit on that. However I have never noticed a pattern for Reuters unlike what I have seen with FOX NEWS, and MSNBC. Thought I might not have been paying attention really closely to Reuters like I tend to do for Fox News, and MSNBC.
Click to expand...

You do know this the second time that Reuters has been busted, right?
 
apdst said:
You do know this the second time that Reuters has been busted, right?
Click to expand...

Wow one other time right? So this means a pattern rolls eyes. Also it could have been cropped to take out that yellow thing, since as a photographer I would not want something like that effecting the photo subject which was the guy on the ground, and not the guy with the knife.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
I'm sure the Islamist attackers will be grateful for your support, and your justification for this disgusting falsification towards that end.
Click to expand...

That was an asinine reply.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Seriously? Have you been paying attention. They claimed to be a peace ship, and now you want to argue two seperate excuses? Rather pathetic dood. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm quite serious. The claim is the photo. If you don't see the knife what alternative conclusion can you draw? That the soldier did it to himself? Really, do you think anyone thought that?
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Wow one other time right? So this means a pattern rolls eyes. Also it could have been cropped to take out that yellow thing, since as a photographer I would not want something like that effecting the photo subject which was the guy on the ground, and not the guy with the knife.
Click to expand...

Especially if you were promoting a lie.
 
apdst said:
Especially if you were promoting a lie.
Click to expand...


Meh differences of opinions, since not every photographer is trying to lie in his job. He was trying to take something that was obstructing the view point of the subject which is the guy on the ground out of the way of the picture. That is not telling a lie it is just getting a better picture of the guy lying on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom