« Galloway Loses It... (Whatever he had left of "it" to begin with) | Main | Iran Gets It Right! Bans CNN Reporters... »

Get Your New York Times Staged Photos Here.

Posted by Randy on January 16, 2006 11:13 AM

hat tip Michelle Malkin
I'm sure I don't need to rehash the far left liberalism of the New York Times, particularly what we've seen over the past few years (although I would like to gather together a comprehensive and ongoing list at some point), so I'll just get right to it...

I actually read about this on another blog the other day, but I was actually specifically looking for something else at the time and forgot all about it. I'm pretty sure I saw it at Hit & Run first, but either way they were certainly out earlier than the rest of us. Anyway, at least we're talking about it now.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that this is a false caption, leading to the belief that this photo is all together a staged event meant for maximum heartstring pulling impact (i.e. "How could Bush bomb these poor people, look at how sad they are standing in their rubble next to that U.S. missile")

Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.

I'm no expert, but when I first saw the photo a couple days ago, I thougth immediately, "wow, that thing looks old... is that really what we dropped"... But until the buzz picked up today, I had forgotten all about it. Well it appears people who know what they're talking about agree. And not only does it look old, it's not something that would have even been fired from a predator drone.

This exceprt from a Thomas Lifson article on TheAmericanThinker.com (Great article, breaks it all down)

Ned Barnett is an expert on military technology, and frequently serves as a contributor to The History Channel on mil-tech issues. He has plenty of experience researching military ordnance. He told me:

“Based on my extensive experience in researching military technology, I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell – unfired – and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish.

Again, I'm no expert, so someone might be able to convince me that a Predator would drop one of these things... but I'm not the NY Times, and I probably still would have checked it anyway! This kind of reminds me of MoveOn.org not knowing the difference between British and U.S. troops in one of their commercials *cough*propaganda films*cough*. Then busted photoshoping stills on their web page trying to cover their tracks.

Like all the other daily examples of staged photos, headlines, and articles the Misleadstream Media won't touch this... These sort of things happen with such regularity, equaled only by the regularity at which the media ignores it, even when the bloggers bring it to their attention. I just wish enough people knew so we could demand media reform, because it's only going down hill folks.

More:
The Political Teen, Jeff Gannon, Sister Toldjah, Augean Stables, Iowa Voice, Old Controller, Generation Why, Gina Cobb, California Yankee, The Strata-Sphere, Reverse Vampyr, North Canton Airline, The Kellino Zone, Dread Pundit, Maggie's Farm, Severe Writer's Block, Kokonut Pundits, The Florida Masochist, Murdoc Online, Independent Christian Voice

 

TrackBack

| TrackBack URL

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/60

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Get Your New York Times Staged Photos Here.:

» Iowa Voice linked with Photo Fakery (Again) At The New York Times
Caught again: Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues that yes, it can run, and in a prominent position - at least in the case o [Read More]

Tracked on January 16, 2006 12:35 PM

» Gina Cobb linked with More New York Times Photo Fraud in War on Terror?
Did the New York Times fake a photo as part of an ongoing effort to undermine America's war on the masterminds of the September 11th attack? Check out this picture that was published at the New York Times website on January 14, 2006. The caption reads,... [Read More]

Tracked on January 16, 2006 02:42 PM

» RightWinged.com linked with Sorry NY Times, Looks Like We Made A Terrorist Kebab
hat tip: Michelle Malkin You might remember that the blogosphere ripped apart the NY Times a few days ago, for clearly staging a photo for maximum heartstring pulling impact, or at the very least, stupidly running with a photo with... [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2006 07:47 AM

» RightWinged.com linked with Sorry NY Times, Looks Like We Made A Terrorist Kebab
hat tip: Michelle Malkin You might remember that the blogosphere ripped apart the NY Times a few days ago, for clearly staging a photo for maximum heartstring pulling impact, or at the very least, stupidly running with a photo with... [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2006 07:49 AM

Comments

Not only is that an artillery round (notice the rifling marks on the brass band), but it is an INERT round.....i.e. there is no explosive inside!

The round is painted blue, the well-known (except to the NYT) international standard for NON-EXPLOSIVE practice rounds. These things are fired in training sessions by military in every country around the world, every day!

The New York Times is just pathetic.

Posted by: Doug | January 16, 2006 01:39 PM

Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe 'em Doug. What's really sad though is that literally 99% of the country will probably never hear about this or any of the other similar and worse examples of bias we get rolling in constantly.... leaving the Misleadstream Media to continue with their image of "credibility" for the average news viewer.

Posted by: Randy | January 16, 2006 02:13 PM

Nothing from that DailyBS post debunks anything "Haha", or "fu**you@foff.org" as you chose for your submitted email address in an obvious attempt at civility? I shouldn't expect anything more from you, but thanks for being my first unhinged lefty commenter. The first of what I hope will be many.

Anyway, at best your DailyBS seems to want to excuse the NY Times on the grounds that they're lazy and stupid and I don't think that "debunks" or excuses anything bud.

Posted by: Randy | January 16, 2006 03:36 PM

That round in the photo is a 203mm round fired out of the M110A2 track
mounted artillery gun.

see here:
http://www.pofwah.com.pk/products/images/LARGE/203mmhowhem106.jpg

You can clearly match up the lettering from the NY Times photo to this
photo. Pakistan has these artillery guns available and they have a
range of over 25 miles so it's not inconcievable that there was
additional fire called in after the air strike by ground teams. The
shell does not look old to me. If you look at the unfired photo
round you can see the banding below the yellow markings. In the NY
Times photo you can see the unbanded round with the rifling marks
shown. Hope this helps you out. I don't really think this was some
big liberal conspiracy

Posted by: tbizzle | January 16, 2006 05:16 PM

NYTimes issued a correction. If I'm not mistakened, I believe that was the fastest correction on record?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/01/14/international/worldspecial/14cnd-afghan.ready.html

Posted by: mcconnell | January 16, 2006 05:47 PM

They certainly did issue a correction mcconnell... which is why I (and I imagine many other bloggers) got a screen capture of it before they could change it. Yeah, it's a good thing they corrected it... but when do they start getting it right the first time, instead of having the bloggers and occasionally Fox News catch these things and then force corrections? Obviously I'm dreaming... they will never be honest or report fairly... (i.e. Air America, Oil for Food, etc. etc. etc.)

And tbizzle, I think you may be right in this case, it might not have been part of a liberal conspiracy... there is certainly a ridiculously liberal media, and this instance is a small example of it... this is one of those "wanting to believe" thing that they just ran with because they knew what the image would do. So they didn't bother checking it out first, because it suited the agenda they set out with.

Posted by: Randy | January 16, 2006 06:18 PM

"wanting to believe" thing that they just ran with because they knew what the image would do."

What does the image do?
It shows a family in what remains of what little they most likely had after a bombing from US forces. Wether the ordinance in the photo is from the strike or not is irrelevant.
Cause as far as i know...there was still a US airstrike on a Pakistani village that killed 18(?) people and not the supposed number II man of Al Quaida who was supposedly the target.

Proving that the times botched a caption doesn't mean a damn thing other than right wingers seem to have an almost unhealthy knowledge of the names and serial numbers of artillery shells.

Or are you implying that the photo is faked therefore 18 people didn't die while going about thier day?

Posted by: douglas | January 18, 2006 02:03 AM

Post a comment