It's about freakin' time!

Hezbollah acknowledged targeting civilians in rocket attacks on Israel, but said it fired in response to Israeli attacks - rejecting an Amnesty International report Thursday that accused the guerrillas of "serious violations of international humanitarian law, amounting to war crimes."

During the conflict, Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, killing 43 civilians, seriously injuring 33 others and forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to take refuge in shelters or flee.

"The scale of Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians make it all too clear that Hezbollah violated the laws of war," Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan said in a comment on the report.

The article basically repeats what those three paragraphs say a number of times, but you've got the gist.

The claim that the targeting of Israeli civilians by Hezbollah was a reaction to their own civilians being targeted is ridiculous. First of all, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that is in the business of killing civilians and that is what they did for this entire war. That's how they roll. Israel, on the other hand, fires at terrorist fighters. It just so happens that those terrorists hide behind woman and children and fire their weapons from residential rooftops. Essentially the majority of civilian Lebanese deaths aren't even "collateral damage", rather they were killed by the Hezbos themselves, but making them targets.

This is just like Iraq. Our troops are less safe when they won't fire in to a Mosque, school, or hospital even thougth the terrorists will fire out at them. If the Israelis were being that weak, they'd have been screwed. They attack the enemy where they are, and it just so happens that the Hezbos hide amongst civilians for the PR. That way they can have Green Helmet parade dead childrens bodies around the next day, directing cameras, reseting for better angles, etc. etc.

 

*As I've said, I will repost and not drop this until the Times answers for it and fires the responsible party. This is such an obvious photoshop, and I can't believe people are willing to let them get away with this. I've provided more Times email addresses for you to attempt to contact them at the end. I've yet to get a reply.*

*My Fruitless Email Conversation With The Times*
First Repost
First Revisited Post
Original Post

(REPOST FOLLOWS)
The other day Little Green Footballs wondered if another Lebanon photo by Tyler Hicks of the NY Times, might be another fauxto. LGF's Charles Johnson who was instrumental in exposing Rathergate, as well as the first Hajj fauxtoshopping scandal, brought the image to our attention, but was obviously less than convinced. Charles simply asked a question, and pretty much left it at that.

Similarly, AllahPundit posted on the image, and attempted to debunk the photoshop theory, and defend the image as real. As time went on, it seemed like the obviousness of the photoshop was becoming apparent to Allah, until in the end he gave up on the grounds that he didn't understand what the motivation would have been.

Let me first say that I have the utmost respect for both of these excellent bloggers, but I feel they chose to be over cautious to maintain credibility that had been built up by the Hajj scandal. I think they felt like they would be going out on a limb if they harped on this. An understandable feeling everyone had when the dust was still settling after Hajjgate. But not understandable, to me, when you look at the image. I posted the other day, and will now continue to until this is resolved.

The controversial image I'm referring to, of course, is the fauxto of Lebanese civilians taking shelter in a hospital in a town called Tibnine (alos Tibneen, Tibnin, and Tibnini), in which a black man's face was CLEARLY photoshopped on to the head of the body of an Arab woman wearing a headscarf. The image remains up at the NY Times' site, and they have not responded to any of my emails.

First take a look at the image below (click for full size):

Here's a cropped and zoomed version of the section in question (courtesy LGF)

And if somehow you still don't see it, look at this negative I created:

Again, Charles Johnson and HotAir's AllahPundit are two of my favorite bloggers who I have a lot of respect for, but I can't understand how they don't see the obvious here. To me, this photoshop job is almost as bad as the Hajj smokescreen.

Note the headscarf you can see emerging from behind where this man's head was obviously pasted. Note that his head is more focused than the rest. Note that he looks like he's wearing 3 different shirts sewn in to one (because the one on the left (his/her right shoulder) is part of the photoshop. Note that even my mother looked at this and saw what a piece of crap photoshop job this is!

I've got to crash, but please, if you can see the obvious here, email the Times at the following email addresses. They seemed the most appropriate of those that I found:

web-editor@nytimes.com
apcar@nytimes.com - Len Apcar Editor, NYTimes on the Web
bogert@nytimes.com - Jeremiah Bogert Staff Editor, Picture desk
witty@nytimes.com - Patrick Witty Staff Editor, Picture Desk

Also, if you are this man or you know this man please email me at randy at rightwinged dot com. Additionally if you've seen this man or the body he's pasted on in other photos, please let me know. The Times got away with the "imprecise" caption in their first exposed Hezbollywood scandal, but they cannot be allowed to get out of this one without someone's head rolling.

 

I've actually been sitting on this one for a while, after a reader named Michelle linked me to this Hajj fauxto, but I've been too busy to post on it the way I wanted to. So without further ado, let's get it on...

In the middle of the al-Reuters/Adnan Hajj photoshop scandal a reader named Michelle sent me a link to a story on Folha De S. Paulo, a Brazilian paper, who was using another Hajj photo I hadn't seen yet. The neighborhood looked similar to the one seen in the original, famous Hajj photoshop, but a lot of those neighborhoods look the same (to me anyway). The obvious difference was how colorful the image was. It looked like Miami or something and you might remember that in the original Hajj scandal, in addition to adding smoke, Hajj darkened the image, dulling down a lot of color.

A few days later while I was obsessing over another obvious photoshop, this one by Tyler Hicks at the NY Times (still not giving up by the way), I flipped through the other images in the Times slideshow and noticed that the first image was identical to the one on the Brazilian site.... well, almost.

Below are the two images. First the one from Folha De S. Paulo in it's original size, followed by the one from the Times which won't fit in full size, but you can click it to see the full size

Aside from the obvious, the Folha image is trimmed at the top and sides when compared with the Times image, but still clearly the same exact photo. As for the obvious difference, I don't think I need to explain how colorful the Folha image is, and how colorless the Times image is. Based on Hajj's history, I'd have to guess that the photoshop is the darker one shown at the Times, although it actually looks more "real". For some reason the colorful one at Folha seems almost cartoonish.

It get's weirder though. Neither image has a caption that indicates a date, but we can get an approximate because the URL of the Times version reveals that the page was created on July 25, 2006. Likewise the URL of the Folha page that uses the image shows that it was created on July 26. That's obviously not that big of a deal, because maybe the Brazilian paper was just a day behind. But I had to think back to Michelle's original comments when she emailed me the link to the image. She thought it was the same image as the busted smoke photoshop. (see original UNphotoshopped Hajjgate image below)

Obviously it wasn't the same image, but it did seem similar for some reason. I opened them both in my lame Microsoft Picture It! program and quickly realized that the original smoke photoshop fight nicely on top of this other one, and it was in fact a photo of the same exact neighborhood. The odd part was that the known photoshop had a date of August 5. Well, not that "odd" considering what we've all revealed about Hajj and other fauxtographers over there, but humor me. My first thought was, "did he take this other photo on the same day, but date it differently (like others we've seen)?"

Giving the undeserving benefit of the doubt I decided that maybe the same neighborhood was bombed twice. Perhaps not all the Hezbos were killed in the first bombing raid, and the next one was to finish them off. Odd that it would be almost two weeks later, but whatever. I don't have Hajj here to photoshop me a smoking gun, so I let that part slide. But the important point to remember was that we clearly had yet another Hajj photoshop that had gone unnoticed. Though I'm still unsure which was photoshopped, the one at the Times or the one at Folha DSP.

By the time I noticed this, Reuters had pulled the Hajj images so I wasn't able to see if there were others BUT I was able to find 3 more images of that same neighborhood, by other Reuters photographers. Two of the images were taken by an annonymous photographer known only as "STRINGER", dated August 6, and the other by Bilal Jawish dated August 7.

Again, I have no evidence that this neighborhood wasn't bombed once in late July then 3 days in a row almost 2 weeks later, but given what we've all seen in the past few weeks, it's suspicious to say the least, especially when 2 of the photographs are taken by "STRINGER" the same week that Adnan Hajj was canned. Even more odd is the fact that two of those images submitted to Yahoo! each have two different captions.

Are all of these curious things just coincidences? You be the judge. But one thing is for sure... We have another photoshop from Hajj, and then a bunch of other Reuters photos of the same neighborhood we've now proven he's photoshopped twice.

Below is a video I put together entitled "Adnan Hajj Reloaded" which includes all of the images mentioned. Scroll past the video for the individual images which are linked to their Yahoo! locations. (I'm not including captions because as I said, two of them have two captions each, pick your favorite)

Free Video Hosting Watch More Videos

Make what you will of all this, it's time for the Randman to get some shut-eye. No matter what you think of those other odd photos (that I don't claim represent any kind of smoking gun), the obvious FACT we see is that yet another Hajj photo has been shopped, yet remains online. I thought after Reuters pulled all Hajj images that the Times might too, but then I realized... wait, that would indicate an ounce of journalistic integrity. And a paper that continues to hold up an image of a black man's face photoshopped over the head of an Arab woman in a headscarf ain't gonna pull anything. (Again Tyler Hicks, that isn't over and it never will be until you or whoever photoshopped that image is fired and publicly humiliated)

Note to Readers: If you can offer an insight on any of these images, or have others, or any comments what so ever... in addition to commenting below, feel free to email me at Randy at Rightwinged dot com.

Related:
Allah, Rusty, and Dan Riehl are all closely watching another case of potential fauxtography. Yesterday you probably heard about a Reuters vehicle that was mistakenly hit with two Isreali missiles.... the strange thing is that, like many vehicles supposedly hit by Israeli missiles this month, they look more like they were hit with sledghammers (at worst).

 

This is yet another notch on the belt of the bloggers exposing Hezbollywood, that makes you wonder "if we can catch this stuff, certainly highly paid and trained MSM employees could". We're left with the conclusion that the MSM either chooses to ignore the obvious because it suits their agenda, or they deliberately mislead us all the time. I think it's a combination of both.

Today (well, yesterday I'm a little late) the Hezbollywood exposing crown has been passed to Zombie. If you aren't familiar, Zombie is everyone's favorite photographer of whacked out liberal protests in San Francisco, but he outdid himself this time.

Zombie put together a ridiculously detailed report thoroughly destroying the "Israel bombed a Red Cross ambulance" crap that got a lot of play especially after we all saw a lot of photos like this (yeah, still live as we speak type)

Thankfully at least Fox News (don't know about any others) picked this up, which I think makes 3 out of what seems like an infinite amount of Lebanon fauxtography. Hot Air has the video.

HotAir's headmistress Michelle Malkin has every related link you could ever need including direct links to stories from MSM outlets who pushed this bologna, awaiting a response. And a big thanks to Michelle for posting this hilarious video, which actually includes one of my own photoshops. At around 56 seconds you'll see a flash of Sheehan behind the "wailing woman" (aka unluckiest homeowner in Lebanon). That was my entry in one of Rusty's "you can be a stringer too" contests. By the way, make sure you're familiar with the "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" internet cult videos, before watching or it won't be as funny.

Big props to Dan Riehl for being out early on this one. I remember reading his early posts on this, but was tied up with other things at the time so didn't get to check it out much myself. Now Zombie's done more work on the bombed ambulance than anyone could ever hope to, and I think the case is officially closed. Of course it's never really closed when the MSM won't acknowledge it, but for those who actually care about honesty in media and have been closely following the Hezbollywood antics, this case is closed in our minds.

 

By: Randy @ 05:52 AM in: Israel / Palestinian Conflict, Liberal Media | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

(h/t LGF who h/ts USS Neverdock)

BBC:

Read that second paragraph again:

The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.

What?! What kind of sick bastards are working at the BBC? Not a lot of commentary needed on this one.

More from the Sanctuary, Allah, and Ed Driscoll.

 

Okay, now I'm getting mad. I've got none of the heavy hitters helping in this effort and I'm going to need them because the Times is going to continue sweeping this under the rug, and possibly just remove the image without a public busting. The best we might get, in the event that they remove the photo, is a tiny online correction.

If you've missed the photo in question, see this post for details. The image is of a bunch of Lebanese people taking refuge in a hospital with a black man's face pasted over the head of a woman wearing a headscarf. You can clearly see the headscarf emerging all around the man's head because whoever pasted this on did a crappy job.

Anyway, on with my full dialogue with the Times thus far:

First, a message I sent to a number of NY Times addresses 08/19/06 5:25am

Hi,

I'm still not understanding why you haven't taken down the obvious photoshopped image, credited to Tyler hicks, of the Lebanese people crowded in to a Tibnine hospital, and fired the responsible party. It is clear that someone pasted that black man's face on to the body of an Arab woman wearing a headscarf. You can see it protruding from the back of his head! What's the delay in removing this and taking action against your employee?

I have emailed a few different Times addresses without a reply, so I thought I'd give you a shot.

For fear of setting off a spam filter I won't send the link to the photo in question at this time, but if you actually respond to me this time I will send you the link and information right away.

Thanks,
~Randy

A response from Seth Carlson (not someone I emailed) 08/19/06 6:48pm:

Randy,

Are you referring to this image? It's the only Hicks photo of a Tibnine hospital that I can find on the site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/middleeast/01scene.html?ex=1156132800&en=71a6dfdf1f535cbe&ei=5070

I can assure you that no photograph that appears on nytimes.com or in the printed paper is altered before publication.

If it's a different photograph that concerns you, please send me the link. Thanks.

Seth Carlson
nytimes.com

My reply 08/19/06 9:20:

Seth,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I respect that the company line is that no photos are altered before publication, and that you truly believe this, but let's be real? We've all seen the staged images, and the "body" of the man who was obviously posing who had been a rescue worker only moments before. I know you guys got out of that one with the "imprecise" caption excuse. But there is no excuse that will work for this other one:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/25/world/200607725_LEBA_SLIDESHOW_4.html

Look at the black man's head in the bottom right. Crop and zoom in if need be, but you can clearly see that his head is pasted over the head of a woman in a headscarf. You can see the headscarf all around the back and on top of where his head is pasted. The tan cloth with writing over his/her right shoulder appears that it is photoshopped in as well.

I'm not calling "bias" (in this instance) because I don't understand what the motivation would be for photoshopping this, I don't see any agenda that it helps further, but it is clearly photoshopped. If the Times would like to be a paper of record and hold any credibility, swift and decisive action must be taken against whoever is responsible, regardless of why it was done.

While I don't think there is any logical explanation for this I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about it. I would also be interested to know if you would agree that whoever is responsible for this should be fired immediately. I don't know if this was done by Tyler Hicks, or by a photo editor, but whoever is responsible should no longer be working at the Times, and a VERY public apology should be made, especially as this comes amid the Reuters/Hajj scandal (which you may or may not be aware went way deeper than what the mainstream news covered).

Thank you again for your reply, and I look forward to you next one. Please don't attempt to stealthily remove the image without any public apology or acknowledgment.

Thanks,
~Randy

Seth sent two replies, the first 08/19/06 5:14pm:

Randy,

Thanks for pointing out the specific photo, but my straightforward answer remains the same: this is not a doctored image.

Just the same, I appreciate your concern and I am passing your note along to the managing editor for photography.

The Times has a strict policy against altering photographs, whether they appear online or in print. If a photograph we had published was found to have been manipulated, we would publish a correction.

Thanks for taking the time to express your concerns. I am sure the photography director will respond to you if there is a need to follow up on the issue.

Seth Carlson
nytimes.com

Seth's second/follow-up reply 08/19/06 5:14pm:

I forgot to mention: the director of photography recently did a Q&A with readers in which she specifically addressed the issue of manipulating news images. You can read what she had to say here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/business/media/21asktheeditor.html?ei=5070&en=80c0e79315ce2f80&ex=1156219200&pagewanted=all

And my reply that I sent out just minutes ago:

Seth,

You have got to be kidding me! I understand that you have to defend your company and don't want to ruffle any feathers and risk your job, but come on! Any child can see that this man's head does not belong there. Do you need a close up, because here it is:
http://www.photosled.com/data/1219/nytimesfakeguy2.jpg

If you are maintaining your position on this, why then didn't you address my specific point? Can you please tell me what that white clothe is all around the back of this man's head? I've never heard of a male headscarf that magically sticks to the back of someone's head. Look honestly at this man. Look under his chin where the scarf comes around tight. Please just look at the zoomed image and be honest here.

Perhaps this isn't your area of expertise, and I'm not even sure how my email made it's way to you in the first place. I understand that you have claimed to have sent this issue along to your managing editor of photography, but I'm not expecting a reply. If you're going to sit there pretending you don't see the obvious, why should I expect any different from anyone else at your paper?

If you decide to be honest with yourself, my email box is always open. Either way I'd appreciate you explaining what could possibly be going on with the back of this man's head to explain this, though I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks,
~Randy

One thing I forgot about - Carlson never said whether or not someone should be fired immediately for photoshopping or not. I'll have to ask him again if he even replies.

Now, as for the content of what he said... How dishonest can one be? He just basically repeated a policy (remember Reuters had policies too) and didn't address my specific concerns. Why didn't he address them? Only he knows, but I think the obvious answer would be that he can't explain the white cloth emerging out of a man's head and out of fear for his own job, won't even admit how ridiculous it looks.

You can help by repeatedly emailing these addresses, demanding a response:

web-editor@nytimes.com
apcar@nytimes.com - Len Apcar Editor, NYTimes on the Web
bogert@nytimes.com - Jeremiah Bogert Staff Editor, Picture desk
witty@nytimes.com - Patrick Witty Staff Editor, Picture Desk

And as tired as I am of reposting these images, here are the images again. In order - the original linked to the full size, a cropped zoomed version (via LGF), and a negative of the cropped zoomed version. Here is the link to the original still at NYTimes.com.

*UPDATE*
Sticky Notes isn't letting the Times off the hook either. Will you?

 

Here we go again

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah fighters battled Israeli commandos who landed near the militants' stronghold deep inside Lebanon early Saturday, killing one soldier, in the first large-scale violation of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between the sides.

Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid — the first major violation of the U.N.-imposed cease-fire that took effect Monday following 34 days of fighting.

The Israeli army said the special forces operation aimed "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against
Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah." It said the commando team completed its mission.

The army said such operations would be carried out until "an effective monitoring unit" of Lebanese or multinational troops was in place to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal

Read the rest here...

 

***UPDATE 8/19/06 9:31pm ET - EMAIL REPLY FROM THE TIMES***
FINALLY, I got an email reply from the Times about this after emailing some specific people. Looks like they passed it off to someone else, because the reply I got was from a name I didn't email. The case isn't closed by any means, but now we have a dialogue going. Here's what NY Times staffer Seth Carlson said:

(note: Seth didn't know which photo we're talking about because I didn't include the link in my emails to the Times, for fear of setting off a spam filter)

Randy,

Are you referring to this image? It's the only Hicks photo of a Tibnine hospital that I can find on the site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/middleeast/01scene.html?ex=1156132800&en=71a6dfdf1f535cbe&ei=5070

I can assure you that no photograph that appears on nytimes.com or in the printed paper is altered before publication.

If it's a different photograph that concerns you, please send me the link. Thanks.

Seth Carlson
nytimes.com

To which I replied:

Seth,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I respect that the company line is that no photos are altered before publication, and that you truly believe this, but let's be real? We've all seen the staged images, and the "body" of the man who was obviously posing who had been a rescue worker only moments before. I know you guys got out of that one with the "imprecise" caption excuse. But there is no excuse that will work for this other one:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/25/world/200607725_LEBA_SLIDESHOW_4.html

Look at the black man's head in the bottom right. Crop and zoom in if need be, but you can clearly see that his head is pasted over the head of a woman in a headscarf. You can see the headscarf all around the back and on top of where his head is pasted. The tan cloth with writing over his/her right shoulder appears that it is photoshopped in as well.

I'm not calling "bias" (in this instance) because I don't understand what the motivation would be for photoshopping this, I don't see any agenda that it helps further, but it is clearly photoshopped. If the Times would like to be a paper of record and hold any credibility, swift and decisive action must be taken against whoever is responsible, regardless of why it was done.

While I don't think there is any logical explanation for this I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about it. I would also be interested to know if you would agree that whoever is responsible for this should be fired immediately. I don't know if this was done by Tyler Hicks, or by a photo editor, but whoever is responsible should no longer be working at the Times, and a VERY public apology should be made, especially as this comes amid the Reuters/Hajj scandal (which you may or may not be aware went way deeper than what the mainstream news covered).

Thank you again for your reply, and I look forward to you next one. Please don't attempt to stealthily remove the image without any public apology or acknowledgment.

Thanks,
~Randy

So, now it's a waiting game to see what Seth has to say. My only fear is that the Times with try to quietly remove the photo from the internet. If this happens, I'm going to need your help to expose this. I have the screen captured image and we'll have to come up with a way to get this on at least Fox News.

(/end update 8/19/06 9:31pm ET.... original post below)

*As I've said, I will repost and not drop this until the Times answers for it and fires the responsible party. This is such an obvious photoshop, and I can't believe people are willing to let them get away with this. I've provided more Times email addresses for you to attempt to contact them at the end. I've yet to get a reply.*

First Revisited Post
Original Post

The other day Little Green Footballs wondered if another Lebanon photo by Tyler Hicks of the NY Times, might be another fauxto. LGF's Charles Johnson who was instrumental in exposing Rathergate, as well as the first Hajj fauxtoshopping scandal, brought the image to our attention, but was obviously less than convinced. Charles simply asked a question, and pretty much left it at that.

Similarly, AllahPundit posted on the image, and attempted to debunk the photoshop theory, and defend the image as real. As time went on, it seemed like the obviousness of the photoshop was becoming apparent to Allah, until in the end he gave up on the grounds that he didn't understand what the motivation would have been.

Let me first say that I have the utmost respect for both of these excellent bloggers, but I feel they chose to be over cautious to maintain credibility that had been built up by the Hajj scandal. I think they felt like they would be going out on a limb if they harped on this. An understandable feeling everyone had when the dust was still settling after Hajjgate. But not understandable, to me, when you look at the image. I posted the other day, and will now continue to until this is resolved.

The controversial image I'm referring to, of course, is the fauxto of Lebanese civilians taking shelter in a hospital in a town called Tibnine (alos Tibneen, Tibnin, and Tibnini), in which a black man's face was CLEARLY photoshopped on to the head of the body of an Arab woman wearing a headscarf. The image remains up at the NY Times' site, and they have not responded to any of my emails.

First take a look at the image below (click for full size):

Here's a cropped and zoomed version of the section in question (courtesy LGF)

And if somehow you still don't see it, look at this negative I created:

Again, Charles Johnson and HotAir's AllahPundit are two of my favorite bloggers who I have a lot of respect for, but I can't understand how they don't see the obvious here. To me, this photoshop job is almost as bad as the Hajj smokescreen.

Note the headscarf you can see emerging from behind where this man's head was obviously pasted. Note that his head is more focused than the rest. Note that he looks like he's wearing 3 different shirts sewn in to one (because the one on the left (his/her right shoulder) is part of the photoshop. Note that even my mother looked at this and saw what a piece of crap photoshop job this is!

I've got to crash, but please, if you can see the obvious here, email the Times at the following email addresses. They seemed the most appropriate of those that I found:

web-editor@nytimes.com
apcar@nytimes.com - Len Apcar Editor, NYTimes on the Web
bogert@nytimes.com - Jeremiah Bogert Staff Editor, Picture desk
witty@nytimes.com - Patrick Witty Staff Editor, Picture Desk

Also, if you are this man or you know this man please email me at randy at rightwinged dot com. Additionally if you've seen this man or the body he's pasted on in other photos, please let me know. The Times got away with the "imprecise" caption in their first exposed Hezbollywood scandal, but they cannot be allowed to get out of this one without someone's head rolling.

 

In a month that the media has given us multi-use buildings and wailing Lebanese women, (possible) multi-use Hezbollah fighters, more multi-use buildings, multi-use men, more uses of the same multi-use buildings plus another multi-use woman, we STILL have a updates rolling in!

First a bit of background... Remember this guy? You know, the one that the NY Times initially labeled a "body" in a photo caption after having just shown us 3 other photos of him prancing around the rubble. It wasn't long that pressure applied from bloggers forced them to change their "body" caption to:

A picture caption with an audio slide show on July 27 about an Israeli attack on a building in Tyre, Lebanon, imprecisely described the situation in the picture. The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed.

Remember that caption by the way, as you'll see in a minute, the Times is even now contradicting it.

Below is a compilation of the 4 original photos:

Even though the "imprecise" line was such a transparent load of crap (interesting image), most people just left it alone after that. Not Sticky Notes! She discovered 2 more photos in the series of the man who had "fallen during that rescue effort". See them below, along with their captions (via The NY Times Agency site). Also, you can click each to see the full size images at their locations on the web.

(NYT33) TYRE, Lebanon -- July 26, 2006 -- MIDEAST-LEBANON-17 -- A man lies on rubble after falling during rescue operations following an Israeli air strike in Tyre, southern Lebanon, Wednesday, July 26, 2006. As people arrived to the scene of the first strike, Israeli aircraft were heard overhead prompting people to scatter. (Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)

(NYT17) TYRE, Lebanon -- July 26, 2006 -- MIDEAST-LEBANON-4 -- A man helps another after falling while scrambling from the scene of an Israeli air strike in Tyre, southern Lebanon, Wednesday, July 26, 2006. As people sifted through the rubble left of the first strike, Israeli aircraft could be heard overhead prompting people to scatter. (Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)

When these photos were taken, they were obviously taken just before the one "body" photo we already knew about. The first one appears to be the discovery of "Mr. Body" and the second is when someone first came over to recover the "body" (although they've obviously updated the captions now, but they contradict eachother). Notice the man in the background notifying all the other onlookers to help recover this body, in the full size you'll see them all about to rush over.

But that's not it... look at the captions. The first one says he fell during rescue operations. Obviously fauxtographer Tyler Hicks wanted it to match the other caption that bloggers forced a change on, but then he slipped up on the second one. The second caption says that the man was "scrambling from the scene" because they heard Israeli aircraft. Does everyone else appear to be scattering? Hicks was busy getting different angle shots of this "fallen" man.

Now let me ask you something... If this man just fell during rescue efforts or scrambling (Hicks will decide at some point), why even fauxtograph him? What story does a guy who tripped and fell tell? None, and it certainly wouldn't have been included in the slideshow that got this all started. The obvious fact is that the intent was to portray him as a dead body. One might argue it was to portray him as an unconscious survivor in the rubble (which is just as bad of a lie), but then we go back to how he was originally labeled.

One last interesting tidbit here, is that the original photo in question that had it's caption changed to "fell during rescue efforts" is also online at the Times Agency site and it now has the "scrambling" caption attached to it. WHICH IS IT HICKS!? Scrambling or fell during rescue operations? And regardless of which, what story is there that you felt it necessary to take the pictures. I suspect if you were to give an honest answer you say something like, "Well, before the blogosphere cracked down on our fauxtography, I had this man lay down in the rubble and my intention was to portray him as a dead body to help fuel anti-Israel sentiment".

By the way Hicks, your days are numbered. I'm still comin' for you on this one. Photoshopping is MUCH worse than pretending a man was a body and getting out of it with the "imprecise" caption excuse.

Again, big thanks to Sticky Notes for the tip on those photos.

As I said before, the doll I'm about to show you could just be a popular doll in Lebanon, I don't know... but she just seems to pop up more than a wailing Lebanese woman wanting to be photographed in front of a building to pretend it's her house. The background information isn't so important on this, other than to note that this doll popped up in the hands of different people in different places, and given what we've seen, I can't help by wonder if it's a prop. Read all about the Passion of the Toys here, to catch up if you aren't familiar.

Anyway, let's start with the most recent (and newly discovered) image I was tipped off to by a reader who would like to remain anonymous.

That image is dated August 1. The next one is dated July 24, and shows a girl in the hospital for a routine operation. Originally she was labeled as a casualty of war (honest mistake I'm sure). See the doll?

Then we have these two photos dated July 27, of a man doing what we all do when we return to our homes after they are reduced to rubble, loading toys that appear clean and brand new in to a suitcase.

There's the little blonde doll again! Let's not even get in to how odd it seems that Arab little girls would be playing with Americanized blonde dolls. Seems unlikely to me, but that's purely speculation. What does seem likely is that the photographeres and/or Hezbos thought that images of these dolls would make American mothers say "my daughter has that doll!", thus putting themselves in the shoes of the Lebanese, and feeling negatively about Israel. Sound far fetched? Have you been paying attention this week?

Interestingly I just noticed the names of the photographers as I'm typing this. While the photo of the girl in the hospital is by Yannis Behrakis, the other three are by Mohamed Azakir. Is it just a coincidence that 5 days after Mohamed takes a photo of a man recovering toys including that doll from his bombed out apartment, that we see a different man helping his son through rubble carrying a doll just like the first one?

In other photo news, John at Verum Serum discovered two very similar photos of "Made in USA" banners hanging on different bombed out buildings in Lebanon.

 

(h/t Little Green Footballs)

Allah pretty much says everything I wanted to say about this.

The AP gives this guy a soap box to make excuses for his dead body pimping, specifically mentions the video of Green Helmet directing videos in the article, but doesn't seem to have asked Green Helmet about doing it. Why?

If somehow you still haven't seen the video I'm talking about, watch it here now:

How can the AP mention that video, but not have insisted that Green Helmet explain it? I guess we should be thankful that at least Fox News finally aired it.

You also might want to check out Dan Riehl's disection of a video directed in Qana. You've got to read Riehl's analysis and watch the slowmotion version of the video too, but here's the full speed. Keep a close eye on how clean the rescue workerse carrying the stretcher are (after diggin bodies out of rubble?) and keep an eye on the front one as he makes a signal by tapping his helmet twice, after for some reason putting the stretcher down:

More from Dan Riehl...

 

Associated Press headline: Rockets hit Lebanon despite cease-fire

Regular readers know that a favorite pastime of mine is busting Yahoo! and the AP for their misleading or outright lying headlines. Sometimes it's the AP's own headlines, other times Yahoo! reveals their own bias by changing a perfectly good AP headline to a misleading or lying one, often only for the purpose of displaying it on their home page (to mislead headline skimmer types). (For a few examples see here, here, here, and here)

The blame for today's example rests on the AP's shoulders, because as we see here other's picking up the story are using the same headline. Worse than the fact that the AP is up to the old tricks again, is the fact that I wasn't the one who found it this time! Credit for today's find goes to 7 Deadly Sins who I was linked to by Byran at HotAir. Great find guys, as you'll see from my links above, this is definitely a type of bias I enjoy exposing. There are way to many headline readers out there, and the MSM knows it.

Here's a screen cap of Yahoo!'s home page, incase they decide to change it (which is unlikely anyway). Eventually it will be bumped off of the home page, but they never respond to emails or anything, so don't bother. (image links to story)

If you check out the story, you'll see that these are actually rockets launched by Hezbollah at Israel, but they didn't reach. So these are rockets originating in Lebanon, staying in Lebanon. How hard could it be to write a headline that accurately describes the situation?

What media bias?

*UPDATE*
At least Fox News did the right thing here and took the identical story, and applied a proper headline: Hezbollah Rockets Fall Inside Southern Lebanon As Citizens Return to Battered Region

Related:
Stout Republican, The Jawa Report

 

We all remember the Muhammad cartoon controversy that lead to countless riots all over the world, including the killing of Christians in Africa, the torching of fast food restaurants, etc. etc. I don't even feel like digging up links, you remember the insanity over a few stupid cartoons, only a couple of which were even offensive. You might also recall that the imams that got everyone worked up, used fake images that they themselves created to incite the Muslim community (as if they need a reason for violence).

At any rate, check out this Drudge exclusive, and tell me if you expect to see the same sort of reaction from Jews around the world:

Iran launches cartoon exhibition on Holocaust Mon Aug 14 2006 11:40:15 ET

An exhibition of more than 200 cartoons about the Holocaust opened Monday as Iran's response to last year's Muslim outrage over a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper.

The display, showing 204 entries from Iran and abroad, was strongly influenced by the views of Iran's hard-line president, Mahoud Ahmadinejad, who drew widespread condemnation last year for calling the Holocaust a "myth" and saying Israel should be destroyed.

One cartoon by Indonesian Tony Thomdean shows the Statue of Liberty holding a book on the Holocaust in its left hand and giving a Nazi-style salute with the other.

Masoud Shojai, director of the host Caricature House, said a jury looked through 1,200 entries received after the contest was announced in February by the co-sponsor, the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri.

Developing...

Obviously Jews are civilized people and won't act out like the savages did over the Muhammad Cartoons, but I wonder if the left would defend their behavior like they did the Muslims by saying that they were "incited" and therefore somehow justified in their actions.

More from Dan Riehl...

 

***UPDATE 8/19/06 9:31pm ET - EMAIL REPLY FROM THE TIMES***
FINALLY, I got an email reply from the Times about this after emailing some specific people. Looks like they passed it off to someone else, because the reply I got was from a name I didn't email. The case isn't closed by any means, but now we have a dialogue going. Here's what NY Times staffer Seth Carlson said:

(note: Seth didn't know which photo we're talking about because I didn't include the link in my emails to the Times, for fear of setting off a spam filter)

Randy,

Are you referring to this image? It's the only Hicks photo of a Tibnine hospital that I can find on the site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/middleeast/01scene.html?ex=1156132800&en=71a6dfdf1f535cbe&ei=5070

I can assure you that no photograph that appears on nytimes.com or in the printed paper is altered before publication.

If it's a different photograph that concerns you, please send me the link. Thanks.

Seth Carlson
nytimes.com

To which I replied:

Seth,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I respect that the company line is that no photos are altered before publication, and that you truly believe this, but let's be real? We've all seen the staged images, and the "body" of the man who was obviously posing who had been a rescue worker only moments before. I know you guys got out of that one with the "imprecise" caption excuse. But there is no excuse that will work for this other one:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/25/world/200607725_LEBA_SLIDESHOW_4.html

Look at the black man's head in the bottom right. Crop and zoom in if need be, but you can clearly see that his head is pasted over the head of a woman in a headscarf. You can see the headscarf all around the back and on top of where his head is pasted. The tan cloth with writing over his/her right shoulder appears that it is photoshopped in as well.

I'm not calling "bias" (in this instance) because I don't understand what the motivation would be for photoshopping this, I don't see any agenda that it helps further, but it is clearly photoshopped. If the Times would like to be a paper of record and hold any credibility, swift and decisive action must be taken against whoever is responsible, regardless of why it was done.

While I don't think there is any logical explanation for this I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about it. I would also be interested to know if you would agree that whoever is responsible for this should be fired immediately. I don't know if this was done by Tyler Hicks, or by a photo editor, but whoever is responsible should no longer be working at the Times, and a VERY public apology should be made, especially as this comes amid the Reuters/Hajj scandal (which you may or may not be aware went way deeper than what the mainstream news covered).

Thank you again for your reply, and I look forward to you next one. Please don't attempt to stealthily remove the image without any public apology or acknowledgment.

Thanks,
~Randy

So, now it's a waiting game to see what Seth has to say. My only fear is that the Times with try to quietly remove the photo from the internet. If this happens, I'm going to need your help to expose this. I have the screen captured image and we'll have to come up with a way to get this on at least Fox News.

(/end update 8/19/06 9:31pm ET.... original post below)

Original Post

The other day Little Green Footballs wondered if another Lebanon photo by Tyler Hicks of the NY Times, might be another fauxto. LGF's Charles Johnson who was instrumental in exposing Rathergate, as well as the first Hajj fauxtoshopping scandal, brought the image to our attention, but was obviously less than convinced. Charles simply asked a question, and pretty much left it at that.

Similarly, AllahPundit posted on the image, and attempted to debunk the photoshop theory, and defend the image as real. As time went on, it seemed like the obviousness of the photoshop was becoming apparent to Allah, until in the end he gave up on the grounds that he didn't understand what the motivation would have been.

Let me first say that I have the utmost respect for both of these excellent bloggers, but I feel they chose to be over cautious to maintain credibility that had been built up by the Hajj scandal. I think they felt like they would be going out on a limb if they harped on this. An understandable feeling everyone had when the dust was still settling after Hajjgate. But not understandable, to me, when you look at the image. I posted the other day, and will now continue to until this is resolved.

The controversial image I'm referring to, of course, is the fauxto of Lebanese civilians taking shelter in a hospital in a town called Tibnine (alos Tibneen, Tibnin, and Tibnini), in which a black man's face was CLEARLY photoshopped on to the head of the body of an Arab woman wearing a headscarf. The image remains up at the NY Times' site, and they have not responded to any of my emails.

First take a look at the image below (click for full size):

Here's a cropped and zoomed version of the section in question (courtesy LGF)

And if somehow you still don't see it, look at this negative I created:

Again, Charles Johnson and HotAir's AllahPundit are two of my favorite bloggers who I have a lot of respect for, but I can't understand how they don't see the obvious here. To me, this photoshop job is almost as bad as the Hajj smokescreen.

Note the headscarf you can see emerging from behind where this man's head was obviously pasted. Note that his head is more focused than the rest. Note that he looks like he's wearing 3 different shirts sewn in to one (because the one on the left (his/her right shoulder) is part of the photoshop. Note that even my mother looked at this and saw what a piece of crap photoshop job this is!

I've got to crash, but please, if you can see the obvious here, email the Times at the following email addresses. They seemed the most appropriate of those that I found:

web-editor@nytimes.com
apcar@nytimes.com - Len Apcar Editor, NYTimes on the Web
bogert@nytimes.com - Jeremiah Bogert Staff Editor, Picture desk
witty@nytimes.com - Patrick Witty Staff Editor, Picture Desk

Also, if you are this man or you know this man please email me at randy at rightwinged dot com. Additionally if you've seen this man or the body he's pasted on in other photos, please let me know. The Times got away with the "imprecise" caption in their first exposed Hezbollywood scandal, but they cannot be allowed to get out of this one without someone's head rolling.

 

A week ago I posted a story about a Lebanese website blaming Hezbollah for the Qana mess, but not to many picked up on it at the time. Now a few others have taken note and posted on it as well. Hopefully, if we can get enough