In my last post (linked below), I wondered whether the MSM would seriously investigate allegations that some of the photos taken by photojournalists at Qana, including a few that appeared in major newspapers around the world, were staged. Answer--No!
The AP said information from its photo editors showed the events were not staged, and that the time stamps could be misleading for several reasons, including that web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken. An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion.
"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.
Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."
Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said.
"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."
Indeed, Little Green Footballs reports that the AP has already given its "Lebanese Team" its "Beat of the Week" Prize.
I'm a little surprised, though not shocked, by the arrogance of the answers. Carroll's answer is ridiculous. We know that photojournalists have been caught staging (and beyond that, faking) photos in the past. For example, local Palestinian stringers, including some working for major news agencies, have been known to assist in "creating" news photos and video. The idea that photojournalists are somehow beyond reproach and never engage in staging defies credulity. Moreover, it's possible the photos were staged by the locals, with the photojournalists unwitting accomplices.
Also, Carroll, apparently criticizing Rush Limbaugh, who attacked the photos for abeing staged, says: "It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor. Right. That's why, Ms. Carroll, you don't really know whether the photos were staged until you investigate thoroughly. Aren't you sitting in an office thousands of miles from the scene?
Baz's response goes to the conspiracy theories around whether the Qana deaths were really caused by an Israeli air strike, but say nothing about whether the photos were staged. We don't have a quote from anyone at Reuters, but, if anything, my presumption would be against trusting anything Reuters says that relates in any way to the Middle East. Without further evidence, I trust Reuters denials as much as Al-Manar television. [I have one link above, but to get a full flavor of the tenor of Reuters' mideast coverage, google "al reuters".]
There is no indication that any of these agencies have investigated why the "rescue worker" holding the baby in the most famous photos (including one lavished with praise by the AP's bigwigs that appeared on the front page of 33 newspapers worldwide) was also filmed holding a dead baby for the cameras 10 years ago. (He's identified in some news reports as civil defense worker Abu Shadi Jradi [update: who by the way lied about finding the bodies of at least 27 children in the wreckage--see link below, only 28 bodies, 19 of them children, have been found as of almost two days later]; despite being on the scene ten years ago, and also after an explosion in Tyre last week, neither Google nor Lexis have any other record of his existence under that name, or at least that spelling--any Arabic speakers out there want to Google the name in Arabic?). Nor are the agencies releasing the time-stamped photos that would remove doubt about chronology. Meanwhile, EU Referendum continues its investigation of the photos.
I'm not saying the photos in question were definitely staged. I'm saying legitimate questions were raised about the possible staging of some of the most influential news photos of the year. For the news wire agencies to simply pooh-pooh the claims does not suggest a serious commitment to transparency.
UPDATE (Moved up from Comments): Just to be clear, I don't think the question of whether or not the photos were staged has any bearing on one's view of the Israel-Party of God conflict (even if they were actually faked, not just stage,that would be the least of Hezbollah's sins). It also doesn't change my view of the overall situation if 60 (original reports) 28 (more recent reports of how many bodies the Red Cross actually found there; of note that the reporters at the scene quoted the higher figure basd on pure hearsay;) or zero (conspiracy theorists) civilians were killed by an Israeli airstrike in Qana. So long as Israel has taken reasonable precautions to limit civilian casualties, as it has, the moral responsibility for any death lies with the Party of God for using Qana as a staging ground for attacks on Israel, knowing (far better than Israel) that civilians had remained in the village and were at risk. So why care if the photos were staged? Well, if that's your attitude, why not just have Oliver Stone recreate the scene and spread those photos around the international media?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Those Resolute, Incorruptable Journalists?:
- More Lebanon Media Notes:
- More Media news from the Israel-Party of God War:
- More on the Media and Lebanon:
- Some More Details About Qana:
- Revealing CNN Transcript:
- Mystery Deepens--Who is "Green Helmet'?:
- That Was Quick:
- More on Qana and the Question of Staged Photos:
That's not to ignore the possibility that the building did indeed collapse at a later time than suggested. I don't easily buy the idea that Hezbollah secretly knocked it down, anymore than I easily buy the idea that the WTC was taken down by explosives.
In the end, I find in unremarkable that civilians are unfortunately killed in war. Israel would do better to regret the situation while acknowledging the inevitability. Suggesting it was staged makes them look bad. After all, they did drop a bomb too damn close in almost anyones mind. I think they probably needed to, but if they did, then take responsibility and move on. If they did take responsibility, they could then point to the fact that Hezbollah continues to rage war while hiding amongst civilians. That's a far more heinous act than staging a massacre.
There ought to have been talk back and forth between the photographers and their assignment editors about how the photos were obtained. So an AP editor in NY does -- or should -- have access to more information than Rush Limbaugh.
On the other hand, the suggestion that Arabs are faking deaths is not absurd. They do it often, sometimes so crudely that even I can tell instantly from 12,000 miles away.
But Israel is not beyond reproach -- it is a state like all others. They have made some big fuck ups before, and the evidence is that they are to blame for Qana -- now I would be wary fo the numbers, remembering the "Jenin massacre." LGF is an insult to true Zionists who believe in Zionist ideals, whether those ideals originated with Jabotinsky and Begin or with Weizman and Ben-Gurion. LGF's constant call for the annihilation of a whole people and their religion is inconsistent with any even arguably mainstream Zionist thinking. Bernstein, you do Zionism no favor by buying into their conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker. Further, by allying yourself with people like Rush Limbaugh -- someone who basically said anyone who called Mel Gibson an anti-semite to be a "loony" -- you are allying yourself with the devil. And, lest there be no doubt, Bush has been an absolute disaster for Israel and the whole Middle-East. Compare Bush's standing amongst ordinary Israelis with Clinton's --- we all know that Israelis respect people with brains, and Bush doesn't have any. They may appreciate his superficial support for Israel, but they know in the end he believes they are all going to hell and that he has no brains, and no understanding of any of the important issue sin the Middle East.
Please point to a single post that says that.
ONE.
I seem to recall some stories about staged political demonstrations for TV-- again, I don't remember details.
Maybe, though, press photographers are more honest than TV photogrphers.
LGF links almost solely to major wire service stories or photos, usually ones that don't get play in the West. Charles is looking for evidence of a wider Jihad than most people would credit, and he finds it every day. He is also looking to highlight the number of extremists and Islamists that are minimized (with good intentions) by most politicians and the media. The stories on LGF are authoritative for the most part. The comments, not at all.
BTW Rush Limbaugh, while apparently wrong about Mel Gibson, is not the Devil, no matter what Al Franken says.
Is the problem that the guy was holding the dead child up in the air? I mean, really?
Side note - as far as I know there is no national holiday in honor of grover cleveland. I made that up.
In that vein has anyone answered Kerr's call for video. Surely you can't think that all these photogs (and video cameramen) conspired together and everyone at then scene is engaged in a cover up?
To supporters of Israel, the pictures are all propaganda tools, because they are all the result of what they see as Hezbollah intentionally putting children into harms way for the media value in it. Thus, staging the photos is consistent with that view and merely adds some measure of media complicity. To detractors of Israel, whether the child is being held up by some guy so photographers can get a better shot of it is irrelevant because they see it as an Israeli bomb having killed the child. So wherever you put the blame, or view the conflict, is probably strongly indicative of how you view the staging of the photographs.
Also, my points on whether the staging is even something to care about assumes the worst based on the "evidence" presented (which is basically a snide commentary on a series of the photographs together with date stamps that may or may not mean anything). By assume the worst I mean we're assuming he holds the child up to give the photographers a better shot. It's equally plausible that he holds the child up out of emotion, or in order to lift the child up above the crowd, a mix of all of the above, or whatever.
Either way, unless you are the kind of person who thinks Israel kills babies for fun, I don't see how anyone could do more than shake their head at the senselessness of war in this case.
So why the double standard?
There actually is doubt among the media about Abu Shadi Jradi holding that baby up high. Just yesterday cnn.com had a video report from one of their producers who was at the scene. He said it was obvious to many reporters there that the guy was milking it for all it was worth and playing up to the cameras. He said that many of the photographers put their cameras away when they figured out was going on.
I can't for the life of me find that video today on cnn.com. So, it is of little help. But, if anyone can find it - that would be great! I'm still looking meanwhile.
With all due respect, your posts about the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah have ranged from overzealous to disturbing for several days. But with this post, you're really breaking new ground: your desire to deny the destruction and death that occured at Qana is nothing short of disgusting. You would do well to stop posting on this subject for a while. You really need to give some thought to what it is that you are saying.
Before lambasting Prof. B, a little reading comprehension is in order. He never said deaths DIDN'T occur. He is just positing questions relating to how the events unfolded. Obviously, people died - there is no question about that. However, how many died? how many were potentially Hezbollah fighters? and did the events occur as reported? are all legitimate questions.
That may be, but at the base of all of this is a desire to deny and a desire to absolve Israel of all wrongdoing. That's simply not acceptable.
Obviously it is, unless Party B has no option to take cover, etc.
Basing one's morality on Hollywood action movies is poor morals.
I have tried all night, but I all I could find was Hez videos that show less then the photos or Israeli video of Hez launching rockets from the location.
From that noted voice of islamofascist propaganda Ha'aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html
If true, does this make the civilian deaths worse? Better?
Let's get back to chasing blame butterflies . . .
And the myth of Western "civilization" goes on. Yes, it's much more civilized to dump 2,000 pound bombs on a country, knowing there will be massive casualties of innocent people, as opposed to those barbarians who blow themselves and others up with homemade bombs in Israeli restaurants.
In the meantime, hatred of Israelis, Americans and Jews grows by the minute. I fear for the world.
But, as I understand it, doesn't Hezbullah tightly control press access to any news site? And haven't repeated accusations been made by those living through this that tHezbullah takes great care to remove evidence of their own activities at target sites, before they allow any outsiders access?
If that is the case, then it would be but a baby step in deduction to believe that they also endeavor to embellish the evidence of collateral damage as well.
I've had 5 (possibly 6) friends of mine die this year. Many of them violently. However, I don't want to exasterbate the "take it to the limit" response that many people seem to have. I want the perps to be subdued, have their errors explained, and detained. Vengance is a bad idea economically. Information exchanges are not.
This only leads to tragedy, until you start getting to MAD levels of escalation.
The path there is bloody and sad.
If your side is really as strong and enduring as you claim it is, you can stand up to these challenges, and accept them without selling out your core values. Only cowards advocate genocide. The rest beleive in the power of the market, and the greater intelligence of such a system being able to outcompete rivals.
Some people believe that the best way to respond to a bully is in-kind. Violence. That just buys into the ordinal ranking bullshit that leads to mercantilism, segregation, and war.
The best way to respond to adversity is to be better than it. Produce more, have more savings, have more earning potential, whatever. To switch from a P/E ratio sorting to a stupid gross ranking ordination is to lose the gains of the last 400 years. Insert rants about monopoly, innovation, etc.
"The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.
The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."
I don't see the inconsistency Ha'aretz claims. There is no inconsistency between "many rockets had been launched from Qana" and "there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."
And while I may have missed it, I don't recall Israeli sources claiming that the air strike was a direct response to a very recent missle from Qana, but rather that there were missiles fired from Qana, and Hizbollah fighters were thought to be hiding in the buildings. In fact, one of the videos the IDF released of missiles being filed from Qana had the very clear date on it of July 22.
You said, "The best way to respond to adversity is to be better than it."
You are engaging in what I call "Western" thinking. This is the way you and I would settle a disagreement between ourselves. Another example of "Western" thinking is: You don't want to hurt me because I don't want to hurt you.
Unfortunately, this is not the Muslim mindset. And Israel is *not* the bully. Have you ever looked at a map closely? Israel is smaller than New Jersey and is surrounded by 50 Arab nations rich with natural resources, with the intent on seeing her destruction.
An Israeli client of mine explained it like this: imagine living in a large apartment building and everyone hated your family. You long for peace and take steps toward it but you also have to protect your small family at the same time.
I place the blame of this conflict squarely on the shoulders of the beliefs taught in Koran.
So you shoot out the window, randomly killing and wounding passers-by. Sounds like a plan for long-term peace to me.
You may not be aware, but it is The Party of God who is shooting randomly into Israel's civilian population. So I will agree with you that is no plan for long-term peace.
Bago,
I lost the money I deposited in the Warsaw Ghetto savings and loan. The bank folded for some reason, even though the bank managers treid to be better than the adversity their adversaries were inflicting on them.
If such circumstances occur, it is not unfair to question the amoral act. I believe Israel is in the right, but Israel makes mistakes just like all nations--look at the US.
Remember folks: war is hell. This goes both ways, I don't believe Israel intended to kill women and children--but women and children died. It should be treated as wrong for the sole purpose of demonstrating that such behaviors are unacceptable. Not to punish Israel--but in order to say this will not be viewed as correct--for one reason, to ensure that such behaviors will not be viewed as right and there after used as justification for other similar acts executed intentionally. I see it as similar to Regina V. Dudley and Stephens.
So your concern is that after a building was blown up with a bunch of kids inside, someone in Hezbollah might have said, "Hey, Abu --- Get down to Qana and act like a rescue worker and make sure the media get lots of photos of the bodies?"
You seem to be suggesting that a photo of a fake rescue worker holding the real corpse of a real child killed in a real military strike is somehow ... what? Deceptive? I guess, sure, okay. But really, so what?
If both parties, Israel and Hizbullah were operating under Geneva Conventions, this dialog would not be taking place.
Look, for example, at the US Military that operates in the States. They have US bases that are separate from residential neighborhoods. They drive military vehicles, easily identifiable. They *protect* civilian population in times of national emergencies.
Now look at Hizbullah. They do not try to segregate their military, but instead blend in with a civilian population who do not even want them there. They do this to *cause* further civilian deaths. Hizbullah has been known to kill civilians who do not cooperate.
Clearly, Hizbullah is in the wrong. Geneva Conventions do not provide a pass to the terrorists who hide amongst women and children.
Also, I do not see a parallel with the reference to the case you provided unless you are saying Israel is the boy....who had his throat slit (or strike their necks as the Koran provides). That perhaps would fit this situation.
A separate issue that is raised by the question of photos etc is the role of public relations in this (an other conflicts). It is increasingly obvious to me that the public relations component of a campaign is a very important element; and the PR aspect is something that most militaries do not pay attention to at the operational level. Clearly, hizbollah does and it does it quite effectively IMHO.
Are you equating a few dozen rockets to the blitzkreig?
Prior to the "conflict" the dispute was about kidnapped soldiers.
Once the "conflict" started the dispute becomes about who is more culpable for civilian deaths.
In the end, is there a solution that does not equal total annihilation?
The rest is merely window dressing and sophistic chattering about relative culpability. COnspiracy theories will abound in such an environment because the arguments themselves are based upon nothing but one's ideological bent, i.e. the ends justify the means, both rhetorically and in "reality".
Have you made a convincing case that anything ever could?
It doesn't even matter if it's Israel vs anybody or a disaster in other places. Look at WTC and Katrina: the reported losses at the outset were vastly higher than they ended up being. The media reported on CANNIBALISM and RAPE IN THE SUPERDOME. None of that happened. It sure sounded scary and disastrous at the time, and made for bad implications about the people in charge though.
As to pacifism... it's a wonderful idea, but useless when other people want to kill you, unless you have no desire for the survival of yourself and your family (I do know large numbers of leftists who claim this).
Hizbullah is shooting over more than a few dozen rockets.
Here's a news report that Hizbullah has rained down more than 1,500 rockets and they claim to have 13,000 Iranian made weapons with a range of up to 100km.
Your suggestion we be better than adversity didn't have a quantity cap on it. You implied that no amount of adversity would justify getting beastly back, or defending oneself.
Now we know there is a quantity cap, please explain it.
BTW. Who on earth, or on this board, did you think you could fool by talking about a couple of dozen rockets?
Precisely.
The only real Qana denial is the denial from Hezbollah and kneejerk, anti-Israel sympathizers that Hezbollah was (purposely) firing from civilian environs (**) in the first place, in part, to help trigger these types of incidents and then use them for PR/propaganda purposes. It isn't a matter of coming to sum certain conclusions, it's a matter of leaving questions open, questions that are reasonable and sound and that need to be asked. Those attempting to foreclose these questions before they can be responsibly and convincingly answered are, ironically, the only real deniers: denying the idea that questions should be asked in the first place, and answered. Again, not coming to facile, sum certain conclusions, but asking all the right, probative questions: This Ongoing War (as provided above), which itself has an ample supply of supportive links.
** And not only from civilian environs, but they are purposely firing into civilian centers in Israel as well. In a similar vein, see Frank Gaffney today in OpinionJournal. h/t Solomonia
I thought my analogy rather obvious--but, apparently it wasn't obvious to anyone other than myself, I aplogize. No I did not mean to equate Israel with the boy-- I meant to say that their actions were considered unlawful, not because those individuals were evil, but rather, because it had to state that necessity was no excuse for a crime.
I never said Geneva applied, nor did I say the Israelis should be prosecuted--in fact, I believe I was clear in saying such action should NOT happen. Rather this behavior should be described as bad in order to not accept it as ok.
It is understandable that Israel acted as it thought necessary in order to protect herself. This, however, does not mean that such behaviors should be considered "right" for future application.
"I never said Geneva applied,"
and
" because it [the Case] had to state that necessity was no excuse for a crime."
The Geneva does apply to this conflict. If not, what applies?
I understand that you don't think the Israelis should be prosecuted. But what crime have they committed? Please be specific.
As to Geneva I should have said: I never said Geneva applied, nor did I ever say Geneva did not apply. I wasn't speaking to Geneva at all. There are acts that though not reaching the level of a crime, are still not considered "good behaviors" this extends to individuals, groups, and governments.
I disapprove of almost every aspect of his Middle East policy, but that's just plain nuts.
Does anybody know the story about the RAF raid on the Gestapo prison in Copenhagen? The one with the girls' school in the upper stories? Where the Danish government in exile and the British government knew in the planning that most of the schoolgirls would be killed?
Back in the '60s, we used to say 'war is bad for children and other living things.' So true. It'd be nice if the Religion of Peace would take it to heart.