UPDATE: Reutersgate

This morning I noted a picture of an Israeli F-16 and that the caption misidentified flares as missiles. In an update to the post I noted that Jawa Report claimed that the pic was doctored. Guess what?

israeliflareskilled.jpg

Reuters now killed that image as well.

Via Kim at Wizbang, who writes:

If manipulating a photo is as easy as it appears, then how many others have been manipulated? I don’t mean just the Hajj photos at Reuters. Have other photographers manipulated photos to increase their chances of being published?

Manipulating images is that easy, and we should all rest assured that doctored photos are used all the time. These two examples have been pretty shoddy workmanship, about on the level of the moron who used Microsoft Word to attempt to fake a memo from 1972. We should just assume that smarter people are doing better work all the time.

Comments

  1. A lot of people call them the Main Stream Media. Rush has a much better name, the ‘Drive By Media’. Just like the drive by gangster shootings, the media shoots (with words) otherwise innocent folks. They then merrily drive off, laughing at the destruction they’ve caused and looking for their next victim. In this case they’ve been caught, but this is the exception. Rush has nailed them. Drive by Media. Out killing as many innocents as they can.

  2. Picture Kill’ is far too violent. Can’t Reuters be more sensitive? How about ‘Picture Euthenasia’ or ‘Picture Quitely Passes Away In The Night’?