*****UPDATE***** Reuters pulls all Hajj photos. Congratulations conservative blogosphere, especially Jawa, you've done it again. SCROLL to the bottom of this post for full details and more updates...

****SCROLL FOR UPDATES**** AFP labels one photo with two opposing captions

Bear with me through the longwinded opening, it gets good

It appears things are only getting worse for Reuters. First, a little background...

After being thoroughly busted by the conservative side of the blogosphere, Reuters thought their "photo kill" and decision not to use photographer photoshop artist Adnan Hajj's "photos" anymore would get them out of hot water. Not so fast Reuters. First of all, you still haven't held any editors responsible. Hajj is clearly a guilty party, but this should have never made it to the internet supported by your logo if you followed your own policy. (Note: Reuters has played around with their links in the past day, and you have to click another link on that page to find the policy I'm quoting)

Our policy is to send news to our customers only after scrutiny by a group of production editors who ensure quality standards are maintained across all our news services. When we get something wrong, our policy is to be honest about errors and to correct them promptly and clearly.

1. How did this group of production editors miss the crappiest photoshop the world has ever seen?
2. A follow up to #1 - How does the obvious fact that you didn't scrutinize the image (images as you'll see), fit with you policy to be "honest" about errors? Either you have children running your organization, who couldn't spot the photoshop, or you're lying.
3. I don't believe you'd corrected promptly and clearly. I'll leave promptly alone, because at least you took some action, AFTER the blogosphere took you to the cleaners. But "clearly"? It seems more like your corrections and apologies have been low key in an effort to put this behind you.

Ready to laugh? Listen to Hajj's excuse for his photoshop job:

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

Bee Ess! You've all seen the images, so you don't need me to tell you, but check out this animation from Wuzzadem (probably the best I've seen), that shows the vast differences in the images. Beyond the cloned smoke, look at the sky color, building color, etc.

Reader Jim Flynt emailed the following explanation:

1 - The entire picture was darkened quite a bit to give a gloomy effect 2 - The entire pitcure was then sharpened several times 3 - The smoke in the sky created a cloud over the top 80 per cent of the picture not allowing sun to shine on the front of the buildings 4 - next the photo doctoring was done adding black smoke and cloning buildings 5 - Finally a tool called the magic wand was used to highlight the sunlit fronts of all the buildings in the lower 20 per cent of the picture and they were brightened to help highlight the gloomy background

Dorkafork at INDC Journal has a couple animations for anyone who still might not get it, and Tim Blair busts ABC News still using the photoshopped image WAY after even Reuters pulled it. Where are all the fricken editors in the MSM!? Anyway, another lie totally busted, moving along... (stick with me, this only gets better)

Before I get to the good stuff, let's look at a couple smaller, but equally important Reuters photos that leave many scratching their heads. Remember the guy strolling away (looting?) from a burning building, in what appear to be brand new clothes? (another Hajj photo) Flopping Aces wondered if it was also a photoshop job, due to some odd pixelation from the shoulders up. I don't believe we've determined anything for sure on that, but Beth at My VRWC busts a lie in the caption. Does the man appear to be "running" to you? 1. Why is he so clean and 2. Why is it clearly daytime when he flees, when the building was supposedly struck in the middle of the night?

Still hangin' in there? Good, because now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. First, ANOTHER DEFINITE PHOTOSHOP by Adnan Hajj. The Jawa Report deserves all the credit on this one, and I'll refrain from stealing all of his supporting images, but here's the original, Reuters still has online (as I type this):

An Israeli F-16 warplane fires missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, August 2, 2006. (LEBANON)

Now let Jawa show you what's what. A MUST READ, AS THIS IS A DEFINITE HAJJ PHOTOSHOP. No missiles fired, just ONE flare. SPOILER:

So, the original photo of the Israeli F-16 was probably of a single anti-SAM chaffe flare being dropped. In other words, the F-16 which Reuters proports to show firing missiles at Lebanon, was taking defensive measures.

Funny side note: As I type this, Fox News Watch's late rerun is playing in the background. The following is a word for word transcription of what far left nut Neil Gabler just said (thank you DVR):

I was interested in how skeptical people are about what they consume in the media, which I think is a product of the right-wing attack on the media, over the last 10 years.

No, it's a product of us continiually busting them lying and photoshopping you ass! I'll accept your apology on next week's show.

Back to it.... Hajj isn't just a master of photoshopping (chuckle), he's also a master of taking photos of a building twice, almost two weeks apart, and identifying it as one that had just been destroyed on both occasions. Thank the eagle eyes of Scott at Powerline Blog for this one. Check it out (captions follow each image):

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)

BUSTED... AGAIN! You're on a roll Mr. Hajj. Allah will bless you with even hotter virgins for your excellent work, battling the infidels of truth. What else ya got for us? A mystery woman? Whatever do you mean?

Drinking From Home ripped this one wide open, but I've taken it a bit further, as you'll see. Drinking From Home found a couple STAGED photos by other Reuters photographers, Issam Kobeisi and Hussein Malla. Seems Hajj has some competition (don't worry, he joins in this fun as well). Here are the two photos that Drinking from Home found (with captions):

A Lebanese woman wails after looking at the wreckage of her apartment, in a building, that was demolished by the Israeli attacks in southern Beirut July 22, 2006. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisi

A Lebanese woman reacts at the destruction after she came to inspect her house in the suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006, after Israeli warplanes repeatedly bombed the area overnight. Israeli commandos attacked near the southern city of Tyre early Saturday but were repelled by Hezbollah guerrillas who killed an Israeli member of the force and wounded others, the group said in a statement. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

If you don't believe that's the same woman, Drinking from Home has zoomed images of both faces and you can clearly identify a scar, face marking, and headscarf in both. It's her, no doubt. But how could this woman be reacting to her "house" being bombed overnight on August 5, when she clearly already reacted to her "apartment" being bombed on July 22 (two weeks earlier)? I guess the BBC is too busy to figure this out, as they're using the second image twice on one page, as I type this.

You thought it ended there? Nope! Look what an anonymous commenter at Drinking From Home found, by yet another photographer, Issam Kobeisy:

A woman reacts as she surveys the damage to the southern suburbs of Beirut, site of intense Israeli air raids, August 1, 2006. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisy

Obviously not as good of a shot, but I think it's very likely that this is the same woman. Let me know what you think. These 3 dates weren't the only time the mystery woman seems to have shown up. Admittedly, some of this is speculation on my part, and there is no way to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, but don't the women in these 5 photos from our old buddy Adnan Hajj bear a striking resemblence to the woman in posing in the staged photos just mentioned? If this is the same woman, it would seem that she travels with the Reuters photographers, to pose wherever and whenever they need (see dates). Please let me know if you think all, none, or any of these women are the same as the one above:

Lebanese women walk past a damaged building in southern Beirut July 15, 2006, the Hizbollah stronghold that was targeted Friday by Israeli warplanes. 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. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj.(LEBANON)

Lebanese women pass under a bridge in southern Beirut July 15, 2006, the Hizbollah stronghold that was targeted on Friday by Israeli warplanes. 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. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj.(LEBANON)

A Lebanese woman cries as she carries belongings from her home in south Beirut, July 23, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj

A Lebanese woman after seeing her destroyed apartment in a building that was targeted by Israeli air strikes in southern Beirut, July 24, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

A Lebanese woman carries her belongings while fleeing Israeli air strikes in southern Beirut July 24,2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)

Again, all input is welcome. I think the woman in the third photo looks very much like the woman in the photos that Drinking at Home caught. The fourth photo is difficult to tell because the lighting is different and she's wearing a totally different outfit, but use your imagination. Wouldn't he want to try to make her look a little different? The others are a bit too distant to be sure, but looks a lot like her to me. What say you? Perhaps I'm reaching a bit, but given what we've seen, can you blame me? And would you be surprised if I was right?

A couple other quick points worth mentioning before I finish this post up. I found this photo of a burning Koran this afternoon, but put off posting and have now been scooped by Ace of Spades who notes how lucky Adnan Hajj must have been to find a terrorist inciting burning Koran hours after an Israeli strike. I mean, clearly this little book just defied logic and stayed burning for hours. It obviously wasn't lit by Hajj or one of his pals just for this photo, right?

A copy of the Koran burns in southern Beirut after the Hizbollah stronghold was targeted by Israeli air strikes July 16,2006. Israeli air raids shook Beirut on Sunday, the fifth day of a devastating assault on Hizbollah and Lebanon that has prompted no U.N. Security Council action and only a mild plea for restraint from Israel's U.S. ally. REUTER/Adnan Hajj.(LEBANON)

I'm left wondering if this photo isn't photoshopped too. I'm no fire or photo expert, but don't those flames look weird? Why are they so translucent, and not fitting with the image? More importantly, why are they coming out of a part of the book that appears to be nothing but ash? If it was clearly paper burning, okay.. .but the flames are shooting out of a bunch of charred black ash. Am I right?

Beyond just looking weird and ash burning, look at the weird black dot in one of the flames, wtf? I've never seen fire that had solid black dots in it. And is that a stick going through the whole picture? If this isn't a photoshop (which again seems possible), was that stick used to start the fire? Also, if this is a real photo, it appears more that the Koran was dropped on top of a fire that was already there, doesn't it? Check out this zoomed image where I point a couple of these things out:

One way or another, as Ace pointed out, it makes no sense that the book would still be burning hours after an attack. And again, this is Hajj, not one deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

Another image I got scooped on by waiting to post was Cox & Forkum's latest toon. Michelle Malkin beat me to the punch and added it to her extensive and great round-up of all these new finds by the time I finally got around to posting. Oh well, it's a definite must see anyway. As always C & F nail it:

Dan Riehl is out of the gates with 3 other posts cracking down on more obvious photo fakery and other questionable photos (see here, here, and here). As I check back to see if he's updated, I see he's got more for us. It appears that Adnan Hajj is an economic editor for a Lebanese daily newspaper.

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker thinks we need an outside investigation of Reuters, which should include Charles Johnson of LGF who got this whole ball rolling.

Counterterrorism blog catches Reuters reporting that Lebanon "rejected" the UN draft resolution, but basing it on the words of a pro-Syrian ally of Hezbollah.

What is going on at Reuters? Too bad the left side of the blogosphere isn't angry with the lying MSM (why woul they be?), or we'd have enough power to force some real change. I'm not hearing anything out of the Kos Kids or the Huffington Post folks. Do you guys care at all about this? And don't give me the isolated incident crap, you say that everytime. Eventually these "isolated incidents" need to be called a pattern. Shouldn't you lefties demand honesty in the media? I mean, you have whole sites devoted to going after Fox News... but you don't care about Reuters who feeds news to all the major outlets?

****UPDATE - ANOTHER BIG BUST*****
Bravo to Dog of Flanders (who until now I hadn't heard of), for catching AFP not knowing where missiles were coming from so they just wrote two captions to cover all bases! Okay, it's not Reuters, but you've got to see this:

Tyre, LEBANON: Rockets fired from Israel are seen falling in the outskirts of the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre, 06 August 2006. Israel's army will carry on fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon until two soldiers, whose capture sparked the conflict last month, are returned, its ambassador to Washington said today. AFP PHOTO/SAMUEL ARANDA (Photo credit should read SAMUEL ARANDA/AFP/Getty Images)

Tyre, LEBANON: Katyusha rockets are fired from the outskirts of the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre into Israel, 06 August 2006. Israel's army will carry on fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon until two soldiers, whose capture sparked the conflict last month, are returned, its ambassador to Washington said today. EDS NOTE: CORRECTING DIRECTION OF SHELLING. AFP PHOTO/SAMUEL ARANDA (Photo credit should read SAMUEL ARANDA/AFP/Getty Images)

Uh, those two captions on the same exact photo say completely opposite things. Which is it guys? Are they coming or going, and where are they coming from and going to? Please explain why it's appropriate to just say "screw it, we weren't sure so we figured with two opposite guesses, at least one would be right". Or if that's not what you attempted to do, please explain just what you did mean to do. I see on the second caption where you said, "EDS NOTE: CORRECTING DIRECTION OF SHELLING.", but what does that mean?

******UPDATE - REUTERS PULLS ALL HAJJ PHOTOS******
Pat yourselves on the back, the blogosphere does it again. Well, the conservative blogosphere (Jawa in particular), the left side didn't seem to care about this at all. Why would they, it's an honesty in media issue. First, what you've all been waiting for... the picture kill (h/t on the image - Drinking From Home):

Ynet and E&P both have details on Reuters's decision to pull all Haqq photos after Jawa busted open the "missile/flares" photo(shop). Via E&P:

Reuters also said today it had put in place a tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict to ensure that no photograph from the region would be transmitted to subscribers without review by the most senior editor on the Reuters Global Pictures Desk, according to a Reuters spokeswoman.

Why should you need tighter editing procedures? We already reviewed your policy. This is like the government not enforcing immigration laws, you just need to enforce your current policy and there wouldn't have been a problem. Or could it be that the images suited your agenda so much, that you let slip some obvious photoshops and staged images?

“There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image," said Tom Szlukovenyi, Reuters Global Picture Editor, in a statement. "Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy."

What kind of employees do you have the need constant reminding not to doctor photos. I don't think it's that difficult of a policy to remember. Why don't you just mention upon hiring a person "Hey, you know we don't doctor photos around here, right?", to which the new employee should say "Of course, that's common sense." Should they really need constant reminding?

Its Monday statement, after describing the flap over the first image, reads: "An immediate enquiry began into Hajj’s other work. It found on Monday that a second photograph, of an Israeli F-16 fighter over Nabatiyeh, southern Lebanon and dated Aug 2, had been doctored to increase the number of flares dropped by the plane from one to three."

Uh, actually Jawa was the one who caught that, not your "enquiry". And it wasn't just doctored to increas the number of flares, but the flares were being called missiles. A huge dfference considering missiles are imply and offensive, while flares are defensive.

Michelle Malkin is an update machine today, and links us to a great video by The Dissident Frogman, of how to tak a photograph photoshop like Hajj. Malkin updates further here.

Michelle's HotAir partners in crime AllahPundit and Ian, have some great multimedia to share as well. First, Ian posts audio of Rush Limbaugh's comments on all of this, then Allah posts video of LGF's Charles Johnson discussing all of this on CNN. The post is updated by Ian with audio of Johnson on Drudge Radio last night. In a lengthy link heavy update, Allah also posted on Reuters's decision to pull all Hajj photos, but notes that you can still find them on the wires.

Others Blogging:
Wizbang, Ed Driscoll, Capital Region People, Dave Lucas, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Sierra Faith, The Yelling Box, Cobb, Old War Dogs, The View From North Central Idaho, Searchlight Crusade, Iowa Voice, The American Mind, Isaac Schrodinger, Center for Sanity, Protein Wisdom, Church and State, The Dissident Frogman

More:
Rain Falls On Everyone, Iowa Voice, Alarming News, A Blog For All, High Desert Wanderer, Outside the Beltway, Old War Dogs, Suitably Flip, Common Folk using Common Sense, The American Princess, Wizbang, The Broken Chair, Two or Three, Assorted Babble, Right Wing Nut House, Euphoric Reality, Protein Wisdom, 4 The Little Guy, DeMediacratic Nation, Riehl World View, Riehl World View (Again), Sierra Faith, The Dread Pundit Bluto, Sister toldjah, The Cassandra Page, Mazurland Blog, Okie on the Lam, It Shines For All, Human Events Online, Darleen's Place, QT Monster's Place, Sublime Rage, StikNStein, Hyscience, Morning Coffee, Think Sink, Conservative Blog Therapy, Pirate's Cove, Partisan Times, Daniel360