« Fresh Reuters Picture Kill?! Looks like it... | Main | Weekend at Castro's? Some Think Fidel Fotos Are Fauxtos... »

Reuters Attributes 3 Different Dates To One Building's Destruction *UPDATES*

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

***UPDATE - My Pet Jawa finds a great example of a multi-use human! Scroll for details***

Welcome, LGF readers! (feel free to comment here too guys!)

(Note: To save bandwidth on this post after the LGF link, I'm hosting these 4 images through photobucket. Please wait for all to load, and please let me know if there are any issues)

I don't even need to say much in this post because the pictures speak for themselves. Let me just start by asking you if the building in the photo below looks familiar to you? (image links to its current location on Yahoo!)

Collapsed buildings are seen in the Hizbollah stronghold in southern Beirut July 16, 2006. Israeli aircraft pounded areas in south, east and northern Lebanon on Saturday, a day after Hizbollah's chief declared an open war against the Jewish state following the bombardment of his stronghold in Beirut. REUTER/Fadi Galioum (LEBANON)

Doesn't look familiar? Maybe that's because you're used to seeing it from the front, and with 2 other dates attributed to its destruction. Before I show you the front photos, I'd like to note that Fadi Galioum submitted the same photo a day later (July 17), though still with the July 16 date, only it was a slightly clearer version (look close), and the caption only used the first sentence of the caption above. See it here.

So, we see that (according to the caption) this building was apparently destroyed, and left in its tipped over state on July 16. But as soon as I saw the photo, I remembered a few Adnan Hajj Reuters images I had posted a few days ago here. Take a look at those images and their captions below, paying close attention to the dates. Note that even though Hajj's images were removed from Yahoo!, for some reason this first one is still up. The second one is located at The China Times and it remains live as well.

Buildings damaged by Israeli air strikes in southern Beirut, July 18, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)
A Lebanese man carries belongings he found in the wreckage of his home after it was targeted by the Israeli air strikes, in southern Beirut July 23,2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)
A Lebanese woman cries as she carries belongings she founded in the wreckage of her home that was targeted by the Israeli air strikes,in southern Beirut July 23, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

So let me get this straight Reuters - this building was destroyed on July 16, 18, and 23? I mean, that would have to be the case, because you have longstanding strict policies that require a group of editors to scrutinize each image before they come in.

Now to cover all my bases I should point out that the dates Hajj used, weren't the submission dates, so don't think that's an excuse. Those are the dates written in the caption to identify when the photos were supposedly taken, not the submission date/time that you see above the captions on photos at Yahoo!

On a side note, it's kind of odd that the photographer who took the photo dated July 16, Fadi Galioum, only has 6 photos online (through Yahoo anyway). This obviously doesn't mean anything, it's just odd considering most of these photographers have dozens or hundreds. Galioum's images are all from July 16 by the way.

*Note*
Earlier I mentioned how the July 16 image of this building is posted twice at Yahoo! and that the other one, with the shorter caption, is just slightly clearer. I wanted to clarify that it is so slightly, that it's almost impossible to tell. I even put both images next to eachother in planning to add the image here, but you couldn't tell. The only way I could tell was that I had both images open in tabs in Firefox, so when I tabbed back and forth, it was something like a flip book and I could make out that one just seems to be sharper or more focused, just a hair. Of course none of that is really relevant to the date issue, but incase anyone was trying to see something that is barely noticeable.

*UPDATE*
My first (and hopefully not last) LGF link!

AllahPundit is linking as well, in an update to his post focusing on minimal damage to vehicles that were supposedly hit by Israeli rockets, but look more like they fell victim to sledgehammers. About this post Allah says:

...although I think that has less to do with phony photos than poorly written captions. The dates refer to the date each photo was taken, I think, not the date of the airstrike. Incredibly misleading, although perhaps not deliberately so.

You're certainly right and I considered all of that, but I would submit that the likely scenario is that this is a deliberate attempt to make it appear as if the building had just been destroyed on each occassion. If that wasn't the intent, the captions would mention when the building was destroyed (i.e. "..the building was destroyed during heavy Israeli bombing on XXX, 2006"). Also consider the fact that all but the July 16 photo are by Adnan Hajj. Given his track record isn't it likely that his photos were all taken the same day? Either way, I don't have a problem with the July 16 image (the first one above, which I discovered more recently than the rest), because it was probably the only honest portrayal. Hajj then took the other three photos and assigned two different dates, in an obvious attempt to mislead.

By the way, the dates seem to be written in to the 3 Hajj captions to deliberately leave him that out. While one reads them normally as saying that the buildings were destroyed on those days, they're ambiguous enough that Hajj could skate on the excuse that the date is when the photo was taken.

***UPDATE***
In the comments at LGF I see folks asking if "wailing woman" from the last photo, might be the same as the woman we know as the unluckiest multiple home owner in Lebanon. In fact I have considered this possibility too, and the first time I actually ever used this wailing woman's photo, was in a post about this very question. I found a bunch of photos of women who I thought might possibly be the same woman, and perhaps might travel with Hajj. Check it out here (scroll down quite a bit because it's a long post.)

***UPDATE***
I have to respond to one specific comment at LGF. By the way, if you guys comment here it would be easier to respond to you because I'm not registered to comment at LGF.

Anyway, here's the comment:

#133 JustMyView 8/14/2006 03:05PM PDT Re the three buildings, I don't think the picture taken by Fadi Galioum on July 16th is the same building as those taken later by Adnan Hajj. The picture taken on the 16th has a building frame or scaffolding of some sort on the right that should be visible in the pix take from the other side, but I can't see it. Does anyone else see it?

I considered this for a while before actually posting, but in the end I couldn't get past how obvious it was that we're looking at the same building. There are a number of reasons why the scaffolding might not be visible in the other 3 shots. The photo from the back is taken at a totally different angle, rather than straight on (notice you can see the side of the tipped building). Additionally, I would suggest that Hajj (who took the other 3 shots) was standing next to and maybe closer to the building than that scaffolding, which would be why you wouldn't see it in his photos. You get what I mean?

Who knows, maybe the scaffolding was even taken down since the July 16 photo. But I think it's quite clear that we're looking at the same building. Note the high telephone line and the window awnings of the still standing building (left on first photo, right on others). Also note the subtle differences of what is and isn't visible in all of the photos. This can easily account for anything that seems slightly different.

******UPDATE******
Howie at My Pet Jawa discovers a terrific example (or shameful example, depending on how you look at it) of a multi-use human. Is the following woman A. A survivor? B. Thirsty? C. A dead body? D. All of the above?

If you chose D, you're correct! Photos (with captions) in order, as they appear at the Daily Mail (settle down Howard Dean, it's the name of a newspaper)

More survivors are dragged from collapsed buildings.
A volunteer offers a desperate elderly woman a drink of water.
A constant flow of bodies are recovered from beneath the town's toppled buildings.

And with that Jawa sends the Daily Mail packin'. Next!

*** Another photo of the first multi-use building ***
John of Verum Serum dug up a third image of the original multi-use building, with an even earlier date. No link to Yahoo! image location because it's another Hajj, so it has obvoiusly been pulled. Below is the photo that John found dated July 18, followed by the two original photos (and captions) that we've all seen:


Journalists are shown by a Hizbollah guerrilla group the damage caused by Israeli attacks on a Hizbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, July 24 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)
A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

 

TrackBack

| TrackBack URL

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/538

Comments

The woman in the 4th photo looks familiar. Could this be the unluckiest woman in the world, who now has had, I believe, 4 of her houses blown away. Must be a high level Hisbollah target!

I believe it's possible Corky. See my updates, as I saw this question a lot in the LGF comments and felt a reply was necessary.

Cannot imagine what the times is thinking by not removing the pic. Check out pics #'s 2 and 6 which could be titled "Woman attacks building with mattress"[could be the same one used on the car...], and "midget employed to take photos of Americans in Lebanon". A rediculous attempt to slant the pic of an American. it's the only photo taken from thiat perspective.

Hey beserker, I think you meant to leave that comment in the thread on the NY Times photoshop... Anyway, I won't stop reposting on that until something happens.

Post a comment