Actually, I think the main point is that it is a dead baby.

So is this what "staging" means?

Does this mean that we should count the dead child as 1/2 of a dead child now in the scorekeeping?

No, te - it means you should give the same credence to a photo you see on CNN or NYT as you do to one on Al-Jazzerah or on Al-Manar. That's Hezballah TV, for those of you scoring at home.

This is not about dead babies, this is about the credibility of Western Media.

So, the appearance of this vidoe proves that no babies were harmed in the bombing of Labanon? I'm relieved.

Well this one is a story about a dead child too, also entirely manipulated by Hezbollah TV and believed by the credulous AP press.

They blamed her death on Israel, since that was convenient.

Turns out someone murdered her, though their explanation is she "fell
off a swing."

But it went out to the Press and to the world as yet another child killed by Israel.

te,

Your posts always seem to make the same tired argument: well it may be staged, but it's a dead person so the fact that we are receiving half truths shouldn't matter. I'll accept your logic then, since it's becoming obvious that, so long as we show the horror of war, it does not matter that we have to make up some of that horror.

Te, let's you and me make up some photoshop pictures of people with Israeli uniforms dancing in the street with the heads of a Palestinian woman (to heighten the fact that we are all about the horror of war and not the truth, we'll use this woman's. In the alternative, these pictures show the absolute horror that Israel's bombing campaign has wrought.

After all, regardless of how accurate the news story or photos are, isn't it really the duty of all moral people to lie if we must to get our point accross?

And before you equivocate by citing W's flight, I posit to you that there is at least a slight difference between a photo op and prancing around with dead babies to make sure that the best angle is shot.

"Proof" seems like a strong word here.

We've got footage of "green helmet" approaching the camera. There's no audio, and the video is slowed down. It's impossible to directly determine what he says, so we have to rely on an English translation of a German translation.

Then we see a child's corpse taken from an ambulance and moved from one stretcher to another. We're told, but given no evidence, that there's no reason for the transfer. It's insinuated, but not argued, that the transfer is the pretext for the removal.

The blanket over the kid's face is removed, and then replaced thirty seconds later. The body is made available for photographs for about fifteen seconds before it is covered up again.

Yes, it does look like the people in the photo made the child's corpse available to photographers. But it's not demonstrated that the photo-op was the reason the body was removed from the ambulance, much less that the body was manipulated in any more sinister way.

Your posts always seem to make the same tired argument: well it may be staged, but it's a dead person so the fact that we are receiving half truths shouldn't matter.

What makes this a "half-truth" exactly? Assuming that the whole she-bang isn't fabricated, then it seems to me that the "truth" is a bombed building and a dead kid.

But if there is obvious staging here, why should we believe that this boy didn't die of some other cause, and then get driven to the scene

sorry for the double post -

But if there is obvious staging here, why should we believe that this boy didn't die of some other cause, and then get driven to the scene

I don't think the so called "staging" makes that any more or less probable.

Look, when you have two different sides firing rockets and missiles into civilian areas - that seems to be just about the most disgusting actions that could take place. Given such barbarism, staging photos is a trivial side issue.

Both sides are going to try to get as much publicity as possible from civilian deaths.

Show me any of that on the Israeli side. There's been coverage of a few funerals, but they're not out there with cameras eagerly waiting to direct the media to dead bodies.

I'm not quite sure why this is a huge "find".

"Staging" events for media play is a common political tool, used by every political faction from Hezbollah to the President of the United States. And it's been that way for decades. It doesn't necessarily make the surrounding events objectively "false".

te asks: "But if there is obvious staging here, why should we believe that this boy didn't die of some other cause, and then get driven to the scene"

By that logic, I suppose we should question whether hippies who protested at the 1968 Dem convention were really anti-war, or whether the military truly supports Bush.

Enough with the sophistry. Sure it was staged. But what's the meta-point you're all trying to make?

Want to see a bunch of dead Arabs, try Mecca almost any year during the Hadj.

I am not sure what the point of that comment is but it reaks of real race hatred.

What is shocking here is that people like Malkin, LGF and Lindgren can see in this situation for what it clearly is -- the easy manipulation of a lapdog press which is unwilling to question the information being spoon-fed to them from "the government" in the area (i.e, Hizbollah is the government). Yet they are blind to this when the American press essentially does the same thing with the Bush adminstration --- eats up its spoon-fed photo-ops and presents them as real news and eats up the Bush administration's talking points. Troll warning: I am not drawing a moral equivalence between the Bush administration and Hizbollah. I am drawing an equivalence in how easy it is for today's lapdog press to be manipulated by those in power. Had the press not bought into all of the Bush administration's talking points and photo-ops, we may have avoided the disaster in Iraq. Recall how Bush's little flight and "Mission Accomplished" poses were eaten up by the press, with Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and the rest of the lapdogs not asking any critical questions of it and just accepting that the mission was accomplished and that Bush was "loved" by the troops, etc.

Mike Anderson- c'mon man, that's just not necessary.

I agree that Hezbollah is awarded undue credibility by our only too-willing press. And I applaud the bloggers working to uncover fraud and manipulations. But this one, I'm sorry, is the same moonbattery as seen on the far left. I see nothing scandalous about this situation. If your insinuation is that bodies were brought in from elsewhere - there is zero proof of this kind of fraud here. Showing dead bodies so that reporters can take best pictures is supposed to be a huge scandal? You only damage your own credibility by posting this.

Why do we expect anything else? Media manipulation is nothing new.

Anyone remember the bombed-out "factory" (I don't remember if it was in the first Gulf War or in Bill Clinton's attack on Sudan) where, for the benefit of the cameras, in the rubble there were these convenient little signs (remarkably clean and undamaged, I might add) that said "BABY MILK" in English?

For some people, the media and the badguys included, perception isn't just more important than reality; perception is reality.

I don't doubt for a minute that Hizbullah will pose the dead in a manner which conveys as gruesome a message as possible for the media. That's a world apart from the lunatic conspiracy theories Prof. Bernstein has been backing - it makes no actual difference if a dead person, killed in a bombing, is photographed backwards, forwards, upside-down or sideways - they were still killed in the bombing.

Also, what does this tell us about U.S. "war porn" pictures like the photos of Hussein's dead sons? It's horrible if the dead are posed and photographed at the location where they are killed, but totally groovy to do it later at a morgue?

[Abusive comment removed by moderator.]

Er, well, specifically, it means that people are using the word "staged" here to mean something different than how it's generally used. Generally, people use that word to describe depicting an event that, you know, didn't actually happen (accusations, for instance, of shipping bodies *into* an area so they can be photographed leaving it, implying that they were killed there, represent what is generally thought of as staging). Here, it's being redefined into any event where anyone allowed a photographer a better shot.

These shots are significantly less "staged" than Bush's appearances in New Orleans, for instance, or the pulling down of Saddam's statue.

In any case, this sort of "staging" is incredibly common in journalism, true. I'm not aware of a single publication that doesn't allow it. It certainly doesn't carry any implications about the accuracy of the reports of those publications, since nothing inaccurate is being depicted.

But then again, dear te and Passing By, Hezbollah saying so does not make it a fact, even though this particular Jim Lindgren's challenge is ridiculous.

As an illustration, they're quick to come up with "56 dead", only to see the number reduced in half. And this without any real scrutiny applied. Yes, I know, fog of war, etc. But the pattern in their actions reveals propaganda, not honest mistake. So I understand why reasonable people embrace "never trust a single word or image coming from HB" mantra.

Let's make sure we distinguish clearly being falsification and staging. There's nobody here suggesting that the dead boy is really not dead. The Hezbollah PR guy ('Green Helmet') made sure that the photo-op was as clear as possible. Indeed, there's a good argument that what he's doing is making certain that the truth gets out clearly. He's not faking anything (at least not in this video).

Those of you who use the word 'credibility' should reconsider. Staging is not the same thing as falsification. The footage is credible. It is not falsified. The debate is not over whether this is true or false, the debate is over two issues:

1. Is it proper to show people killed by violence?
2. Is it proper to show emotionally charged images?

My answer to both questions is, "yes". People need to be reminded just how horrific war is. But ultimately, it's their own choice. Proponents of Israeli policy should be showing pictures of destroyed Israeli homes and the funerals of dead Israeli civilians. Opponents of Israeli policy should be showing pictures of destroyed Lebanese homes and dead Lebanese civilians. The fact that there are more of the latter is due to the fact that there are a lot more dead Lebanese than Israelis.

Federal Dog writes:

This is cheesy, ghoulish stagecraft that makes the horror of war into cheap political spectacle. The victims deserve more respect than to be used as props in low-rent agit-prop.

I certainly have some sympathy for this point of view. I too resent the way that the press sensationalizes everything. I especially hate it when a reporter thrusts his microphone into the face of some victim and asks, "How do you feel?" I no longer watch television news for this reason. So yes, sensationalism in all its forms is tawdry. In an ideal world, perhaps we'd have no television news at all, just pure print media presenting words only with no pictures. Then sound bites wouldn't be so important and we'd have a more intellectual debate.

But our world isn't ideal. The best we can do is the Jeffersonian approach: get it all out. All the ideas, all the images, all the sounds, all the videos should be out in the marketplace of ideas competing for attention. We should never suppress public information. Let it all hang out, and let citizens decide for themselves.

Falafalafocus:

After all, regardless of how accurate the news story or photos are, isn't it really the duty of all moral people to lie if we must to get our point accross? [sic]

I am reminded of Al Gore, who remarked, in reference to the lack of scientific objectivity in An Inconvenient Truth, that it was necessary to overstate the case, in order to motivate the people to take action.

We must keep in mind that these sort of actions are more banal than extraordinary, and temper our judgment accordingly.

ruidh:

So, the appearance of this vidoe [sic] proves that no babies were harmed in the bombing of Labanon? [sic again] I'm relieved.

Why is it that so many seemingly intelligent, articulate people on this blog exhibit such raving idiocy? No ruidh, it doesn't "prove" anything. But it does serve to impeach any claims of non-combatant death, infant or otherwise.

Have totally innocent individuals died as a result of this conflict? Well, that's quite likely. (However, not necessary this particular infant; the circumstances lead us to question whether he might have been "imported".) But, how many - who knows? However, from the stream of information we have gotten, much thanks to this blog, we can be reasonably certain that claims from Hezbollah are wildly exaggerated.

It is the media's job to objectively show exactly what happened. If they alter it in any way, for a better, more emotional shot, they move from reporting to film making, from fact to fiction.

I'd start with 0) Hezbollah firing missiles or other weapons from civilian areas (and into civilian areas, btw, too).

I'd submit that is beside the point here. This is a justification for 1) and the following steps.

Chico's Bail Bonds:

1. Someone killed a child.
2. Someone else gave journalist a chance to take a picture of that child.

Which of these acts do you find objectionable, 1, or 2?

Point #1 is invalid in this case, as we don't know the cause of the child's death. This should be obvious.

Many have complained on these threads, of late, about how they have somehow been compelled to deal with contributors with strong and monolithic points of view.

Well, I have another complaint: That, in order to participate in a comment thread adjunct to what I consider to be an engaging post, I have to deal with such a multiplicity of [abusive epithet deleted by moderator]. I am not talking about those with views contrary to mine, mind you; I am talking about people which seem exhibit some sort of flaw in a basic ability to think clearly.

It's hardly as bad, currently as either Daily Kos, or Little Green Footballs, (In the former case, one also has to deal with raving idiot contributors.) but it is getting there.

I am reminded of Al Gore, who remarked, in reference to the lack of scientific objectivity in An Inconvenient Truth, that it was necessary to overstate the case, in order to motivate the people to take action.

Kevin, do you have a citation for that?

Oh, my. There's no question that the video involves a dead child, but the child isn't a "baby," and anyone referring to the child as such has obviously not viewed it. The child is four or five years old. That doesn't make him any less dead, or his death better. It merely means that the people who are arguing that this is about a dead baby haven't done even the first level of homework.

Is the dead child artificial?

Not "artificial," but quite possibly (or in at least one case so far certainly) not killed by what the stagers are claiming. Or, in some cases not actually "killed" at all, just someone who died from other reasons and whose body was brought in to make things seem even more dramatic.

Odds are that the high "civilian" death rate we're hearing about now is much more along the lines of "civilian Hezbollah" fighters, with a small number of real civilians shown several times to make it look like Israel is being indiscriminate with their attacks.

What deceit is perpetrated by presenting the child's corpse to the cameramen?

In the case of the little girl who fell off the swing, the deceit is in artificially inflating the perceived number of "civilian" casualties.

Observer asks, 'Do you think us all fools?'

Yeah, pretty much.

Short letter to the editor in my paper this morning:

'Regardless of your feelings about the crisis . . . even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part . . . the following two sentences really say it all.

'If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence.

'If the Jews put down their weapons tdoay there would be no more Israel.'

If the goal is fewer dead babies, sorry, the zero option has been closed out. No doubt in my mind that if Israel took the view of te, Observer et al, there would be a lot more dead babies.

It's funny reading these comments. I wonder why no one has commented on the fact that we do not publish, show, etc any pictures from 9/11? Someone mentioned it above, but if we're just trying to "accurately portray what happened" why is there such a blackout on the pictures of 9/11?

Anonymous Reader

Te --- I'm not a lawyer, but I can certainly play a doctor. There are two things about these pictures that strike me.

First, the child, who was supposedly killed proximately by a missle blast, displays rigor and lividity consitent with being 18-24 hours postmortem.

Second, he doesn't have any apparent wounds, and no bleeding from ears or nose consistent with death from concussion.

Not proof, but it sure made me suspicious.

Here is my take:

1. fire the photographers who knowingly take "staged" pictures without disclosing that they have done so.

2. a dead child is still a tragedy. The fact that the Green Helmet PR guy pulled off his blanket, or brought out the kid's body again so someone else can take a picture, is not as bad as the tragedy itself, nor does it demonstrate that the child wasn't killed in the bombing. (What about the videos showing the children and others being removed from the rubble, in addition to the staging of the photos?)

3. these staged photos are probably not as bad, because not as deceitful, as the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter giving phony, tearful testimony to the US Congress about atrocities she "suffered" in the PR run up to the first gulf war, which our own government engineered. (Remember that?) Here, at least, the child is dead due to the war, it is not an invented atrocity.

4.Nor is it as bad as recklessly or knowingly presenting "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction to justify a war. But, of course, no US government would do that, and the MSM, which obviously hates the US government, would quickly detect and expose such a manipulation.

Davide, we cross-posted, so here's my response to your point. You wrote,

The AP ran a photo of a presumably Palestinian man holding the dead body of a little girl in his arms, clamiing she was killed by an Israeli military strike on August 9, 2006.

Today, on August 10, the AP ran this oh-so-insignificant correction:

EDS NOTE GRAPHIC CONTENT ** A Relative carries the body of Rajaa Abu Shaban, 5, into Shifa hospital in Gaza City, Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006. On Thursday, doctors said that the 5-year-old Palestinian girl initially believed to have been killed by an Israeli military strike Wednesday apparently died after sustaining head injuries during a fall from a swing in the same area shortly before the strike.(AP Photo/Adel Hana)


Actually, there was no correction to offer; the initial caption is still absolutely correct. They note that the "presumably Palestinian" man "claimed" that she had been killed by an Israeli air strike. The AP did not offer any confirmation or denial of the man's claims; they simply reported it as a claim, not a fact. Therefore, no correction was necessary. As always, the first bits of news to trickle in are often inaccurate. They followed up with further information unavailable at the time of the original story, reporting the true circumstances of the child's death. (Actually, we still don't really know the true circumstances of the child's death, but we have further information now.)

It's a different case and should be treated differently. This case doesn't prove anything about other cases and other cases don't prove anything about this one.

I have been surprised by those who criticized my post because I was concerned about the staging of photos when the more important issue was that the child was dead.

Frankly, it is not surprising to me that people who would so cruelly and cynically use dead children's bodies would also do the far worse act of using them as human shields.

The Israeli IDF claimed that 150 missiles had been launched from Qana, which was a residential community. I hope that all of you who are more concerned about the fact that this child was killed will now denounce Hezbollah for that child's death. That "Green Helmet" was directing the filming in Qana tends to support reports that Hezbollah controlled Qana and press access to Qana.

That my post focused on MSM complicity in Hezbollah's propaganda campaign (see the UPDATE above for more) seemed to me a more interesting subject than simply pointing out that Hezbollah is targeting civilians in Israel or using Lebanese civilians as human shields. Terrorists killing innocent people is hardly news, even [though] it's ultimately more heinous.

Jim Lindgren

Frankly, the responsibility of that child's death lies with its parents, who could easily have walked out of Qana by foot when the Israelis told them to evacuate - per the rules of war as accepted for the past 300 years or so. There have been no reports of Israeli pilots strafing refugees on foot - in fact Lebanese have mentioned that being out in the open is the safest things true civilians can do.

If an army tells me to leave my home and I don't, I have declared myself a hostile.

In terms of morality, since Hezb-allah considers my brother and his family in Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers on the northern border, and me and my kids here in Motown, to all be equally valid military targets, why should I not regard their families as the same? They have declared themselves to be my mortal enemy, openly calling for my death (yes, Hezb-allah calls for the killing of Jews, not just "Israelis"). There will only be peace when the Arabs and Muslims know they have lost - or Israel is destroyed and all the Jews their exterminated per Achmedthenutjob's pronouncements.

Here's what a wise man said during a different war against an honor culture:

HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
IN THE FIELD, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
September 12, 1864

JAMES M. CALHOUN, Mayor, E. E. PAWSON and S. C. WELLS, representing City Council of Atlanta.

GENTLEMEN: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the case, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace , not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose.

Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufactures, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such thing at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and, if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.
You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, customhouses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve.

Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta.

Yours in haste,

W. T. SHERMAN, Major-General commanding.

Erasmussimo:

I'm struck by your blase reaction to the "presumably Palestinian" man's false claim that a 5 yr old dead girl cradled in his arms was "killed" by Israelis, when in fact she died falling off of a swing.

Would you be similarly blase if I "claimed," with a picture of a dead girl in my arms, that you killed her? Would you be as nonplussed if the AP ran that photo? How about if it ran the photo, with my crying face, and the girl's body, on page 1? And what if the photo ran without even the slightest, scantiest comment that the "claim" might be false?

I would of course presume that, the "trickle" of news, that you would be fine with the AP's conduct.

Are you fine with my conduct? What about the "presumably Palestinian" man's conduct?

'If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence.

'If the Jews put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.'

The same letter was in the startribune about a week ago, and completely accurate.

Davide, you write,
I'm struck by your blase reaction to the "presumably Palestinian" man's false claim that a 5 yr old dead girl cradled in his arms was "killed" by Israelis, when in fact she died falling off of a swing.

What is blase about my reaction? I recited the facts of the case. What in my comment justifies your use of the term "blase"?

And yes, in your hypothetical scenario, I would have no problems with the AP printing the statement, "Davide claims that Erasmussimo murdered his child." I would have a problem with you for lying, but not the AP. But in this case, we don't even know that the Palestinian man was lying. We cannot know his state of knowledge when he was carrying the child. He may have been sincerely mistaken, or merely repeating what somebody told him, or he may have been a secret member of Hamas who deliberately murdered his child in order to score propaganda points. But the AP made no error in reporting the facts as it knew them.

I'd like to respond the remarks about the difference between the Arabs putting down their weapons and the Israelis putting down their weapons. The comparison is fair -- but it leaves out an important point: if the Arabs put down their weapons today, the Palestinians would never get a homeland.

To all of you wonderful folks concerned about the legal aspects of these pictures, let me assure you that you are being ridiculous.

My favorite quote is the following:

"would this hold up as evidence in court?"

I mean, folks, honestly, think about what you are saying. Can you imagine an American court of law ever looking to a NEWSPAPER for hard evidence? "John Doe committed the crime, your honor! It says so in last week's paper!"

The court almost never admits evidence from the mass media, because the mass media is not and has never been a source of perfect, error-free reporting. The purpose of a news story is to tell what happened. The purpose of a news photo is to show what happened.

If the news outlets behind the image of this child state there has been no staging, they mean that the photographer got a picture of the kid who was, indeed, killed in the building.

Next, my dear Kevin, for a guy who is willing to whip out the word "idiot" you sure manage to misunderstand an awful lot of your new whipping boy's point.

His argument, at least to me, seemed pretty simple. It is impossible to artificially heighten the emotionality of something as tragic as the death of a child. To that effect, in order for the emotional element of the death of a child to be artificially heightened, the death itself must be false. Thus, regardless of whether any circumstances are artificial, the death of the child in question remains equally tragic. I'm not sure how you didn't get that, but I'm going to bet that it has to do with having a strong and unbending view point.

Finally, we're talking about a war here, folks. The veracity of the modern news media at getting at the truth in any story is pretty embarrassing; why should anyone be surprised at this? Our overarching goal should remain the same. In this case, we need to figure out why noncombattant children are being killed, and we need to find out why it hasn't been halted yet.

Dan, part of the problem here is that PR people have learned a new trick: deny press passes to those who file unflattering reports. The White House does it all the time. So do many other governments. And now it appears that Hezbollah has picked up on the trick. It's a dirty, dirty trick because it cheats the public of the truth, but there's no good counter available to us. Let's not pick on Hezbollah for learning at the feet of the masters. Let's just realize that we must be even more wary of ALL press reports that are in any way subject to the influence of governments.

It's funny reading these comments. I wonder why no one has commented on the fact that we do not publish, show, etc any pictures from 9/11?

I think this poster gets at a fundamental underlying issue.

There's a common thread running through a lot of the --- for want of a better phrase --- pro-Israel posts here. I'm referring to a sense that "staged" or not, there's something unseemly, inappropriate, or worse about the eagerness of Lebanese survivors to present their dead to be photographed. A sense that someone who would offer the body of a child to a photojournalist is necessarily a ghoul --- perhaps even a barbarian --- and most likely a callous manipulator, willing to lie and deceive.

I can't speak to why Middle Eastern Muslims seem to be, in general, more willing to allow their dead to be photographed than Middle Eastern Jews, or Europeans, or Americans. I can, though, say this:

If my three-year-old daughter was killed by an airstrike, and I believed that I could get justice or vengeance for her death by publicizing it, I would parade her body in front of every photographer and journalist I could find. Put her in the ambulance, take her out of the ambulance, put her back in again --- I don't care.

So you don't make much headway with me by saying that the video shows "cheesy, ghoulish stagecraft," or that "the victims deserve more respect." As a father, I say no.

DOES NO ONE reading here know that to Jihadists, fellow Muslims are props, in principle, in their war against us?

"Let God sort them out" and "Allah knows his own" - meaning, God will send Infidels to Hell, and save True, Faithful Muslims for Paradise. Theu believe they are doing their own a positive good!

Our evil enemy are using your Christian (derived) guilt to demoralize and disarm you in their war against democractic, successful, moral state of Israel. (And even the 1.2 million Arab-Israeli's DO NOT want to join some Pale or Jordan state, by huge majoriities!)

DO YOU IDJITS not see that you are being manipulated into agreeing with a cause that wants you dead! WE ARE evil INFIDELS!

WAKE UP!

Are you serious? That's the sort of "staging" you're worried about?

This post would be more accurately headlined "PROOF OF THE AUTHENTICY OF PHOTOS OF DEAD CHILDREN BY GREEN HELMET"... Jim, you clearly don't understand the definition of "staged".

You are positing that the circumstances of a child's (or any other) death doesn't effect its emotional impact?!?!?!

I know I'm taking this out of context, but it's worth repeating:

All the video that prompted this thread purports to show is that a child's corpse was put in an ambulance, then taken out again and presented to photographers. Despite Richard Bellamy, SP, and others' insinuations, there's nothing in the video that suggests that the circumstances of the death were other than what was claimed.

Folks are, of course, free to suggest that other deceptions, or the perfidy of "green helmet," or the innate viciousness of the Arabs renders it likely that this child was killed in circumstances other than an Israeli airstrike, but the fact remains that this video provides no evidence to support that conclusion.

Since this is a legal blog, I will point out that Hizbollah does not have separate and identifiable military bases (like Israel has)....in other words, Hizbollah doesn't follow the Geneva.

They purposely mix in with civilians hoping that civilians will get killed. Say it again: they try to get civilians killed shooting rockets off people's driveways.

They prevent civilians from leaving, after the Israelis drop leaflets telling them when and where they will bomb.

Dan, part of the problem here is that PR people have learned a new trick: deny press passes to those who file unflattering reports. The White House does it all the time. So do many other governments. And now it appears that Hezbollah has picked up on the trick. It's a dirty, dirty trick because it cheats the public of the truth, but there's no good counter available to us.

Of course there's a counter available--the press can simply refuse to go along with the game, and dare the authority in question to ban all journalists.

Let's take your analogy as an example. You appear to have a particular instance in mind of a reporter being denied a White House press pass after filing unflattering reports about the administration. I've not heard of any such case, but even if it happened, the rest of the White House press corps hardly responded by ceasing all unflattering reports about the administration. On the contrary, they continued to report as before, and of course the White House could hardly revoke all of their credentials--there'd be nobody left to relay the White House's spin in any form, even with unflattering commentary.

Likewise, self-respecting journalists working in foreign countries ought to refuse to report under conditions where their freedom to report the facts as they find them is seriously restricted. And those who bargain away that freedom for "access" (as Eason Jordan famously did to get CNN into Saddam Hussein's Iraq) deserve all the opprobrium they get. Likewise for those journalists who accept such restrictions because they sympathize with the cause of those enforcing the restrictions.

Apparently, at least one German television outlet had the integrity to report events in Lebanon as they actually saw them, not as Hezbollah wished them to be reported. We shall see what happens to them--but it's shameful that so few other journalists have similarly honored their first and most important responsibility to their audience.

A very solid, highly informative and even keeled meditation on recent phenomena in the media/MSM at Augean Stables; nicely done throughout and an ample supply of substantial, supportive links. Worth a bookmark.

h/t, the even keeled Solomonia.

Erasmussimo:

A previous comment of yours stated, and your most recent one continues to imply, that the White House has pulled the press credentials of a reported to an unfriendly report. The only case of press credential revocation I'm aware of is the ex-gay prostitute (Jeff something?), but that was different (he was accused of writing firendly reports for a conservative outlet). Who is the reporter (or reporters) that have lost White House priviledges due to unfirendly reporting?

SG, those stories are quite old; they date back to around 2002-2003. I was unable to locate them, largely because I can't recall any useful keywords. Given my inability to substantiate that claim, I have to retract it. I'll probably remember it in the shower three days hence -- in which case I'll bring it up.

Whoa, David! I think you're overstating the case here. There's a solid documented case of a Hezbollah PR guy warning some photographers that, if they filmed a missile launch site, they'd be killed. I have heard of no other threats. Stretching the first case to "They threaten to kill reporters who don't go along with the party line." is a long stretch. Unless, of course, you have a particular case you can cite that I'm not aware of.

Sorry, the link didn't make it. Here it is again.

Brooklynite:

I count about fifteen seconds from when the crowd parts to give the video camera access to when someone covers the child with the blanket.

Except there is at least one camera cut in there. And it's done after pulling the cadaver back out of the ambulance. And it's including some guy in a green helmet who isn't one of the rescuers, but is instead directing the photographers and posing with the body.

If you see a guy standing on a dock with a swordfish, is it less "staged" because the photo takes just a few seconds to make?

Despite Richard Bellamy, SP, and others' insinuations, there's nothing in the video that suggests that the circumstances of the death were other than what was claimed.

You didn't mention me; I'm hurt. But likely it's because I was pointing out actual evidence within the video that something --- ie, the condition of the cadaver --- didn't seem to fit the reported circumstances.

Erasmussino:

I think you're overstating the case here. There's a solid documented case of a Hezbollah PR guy warning some photographers that, if they filmed a missile launch site, they'd be killed. I have heard of no other threats. Stretching the first case to "They threaten to kill reporters who don't go along with the party line." is a long stretch. Unless, of course, you have a particular case you can cite that I'm not aware of.

You know, it might be risky, but I don't think you'd actually hurt yourself if you made the leap from a warning that if they showed something they'd be killed, and saying they threaten to kill reporters who don't go along.

In fact, I rather think you're more likely to hurt yourself executing the one-and-a-helf gainer with a twist, blindfolded, it requires to not see the connection.

Michael Totten, the blogging journalist, was threatened by Hezbollah's PR guy:

"Who do you think we are? We know who you are, we read everything you write, and we know where you live."

We know where you live. He threatened me with physical violence. And for what? For making fun of Americans on a blog.

The funny thing is Hezbollah did not know where I lived. Two hours before Hussein called me I had moved out of my hotel and into an apartment. The previous tenant hadn't even left yet, and she witnessed Hezbollah's threatening phone call. Hussein screamed so loudly into the phone she could hear him.

Two days later I called him back. He nervously denied that he ever threatened me.

"I did not say we know where you live."

"Don't lie to me. I know what you said."

When Hezbollah says "We know where you live," it makes an impression that is hard to forget. Hezbollah, after all, famously kidnapped American journalist Terry Anderson in 1985 and held him for more than six years. It also kidnapped British journalist John McCarthy, Colorado State University Professor Tom Sutherland and some others. The U.S. accused Hezbollah of killing 241 Marines and sailors with a truck bomb that destroyed the Marines barracks in Beirut in 1983, although technically that was an act of guerrilla warfare rather than terrorism.

"I meant we know who you are." He sounded anything but convincing.

"You said you know where I live."

"I did not say that. I did not say that. If I did say that, I was just stressed out."

He didn't know what he said.

"If I said that, yes, it would have been a threat," he added. At least he didn't try to say "We know where you live" meant he wanted to send me a Christmas card.

"Honest to God," he said, "it is against our principles to threaten people."

But it isn't.

Thanks, James. But that really merited a post of its own.

Interesting. One point is clear. First, the meanies who claimed staging couldn't prove it, while the others implied that if there were staging, that would be a Very Bad Thing.
Now it's proven, and....so what if it's staged? No longer a VBT. Like that wasn't predictable.

The other issue is that if Green Helmet Guy went as far as he went to stage this, WHAT ELSE WORSE MIGHT HE DO? It goes to the credibility of the witness, as Sam Waterston is always saying. So, whatever you think of this incident, what do you think of other stuff GHG had a hand in? Next, what do you think of the MSM's reporting of what GHG had a hand in, and by extension, others of his stripe?

GHG blew his credibility by opening the question, Is there anything he wouldn't do? And the MSM blew theirs by opening the question, Is there anything HB says they won't swallow?

And one commenter asked if we actually know the IDF is in Lebanon or HB is firing rockets into Israel. As Sam Waterston also says, admission against interest. HB and the Lebanese government say IDF forces are in Lebanon, and that HB is firing rockets into Israel. You don't have to take Israel's word for it.

The beginning of the video (0:34) shows that they take the second stretcher (colored orange) out of the ambulance before putting the child in the first time. Maybe the ambulance driver wanted to be able to take his stretcher with him and that's why they took the child out and switched stretchers.

Also the orange stretcher appears to be the familiar kind with wheels; it bounces slightly when placed on the ground. The second stretcher (green) has handles but no wheels. One would have to place the second stretcher directly on the floor of the ambulance. Although it would not matter for this passenger, a future passenger who was still alive might prefer not to lie on the floor. The extra height would also help anyone who was also in the ambulance attempting to treat an injured person.

The other issue is that if Green Helmet Guy went as far as he went to stage this, WHAT ELSE WORSE MIGHT HE DO?

From the video, it appears that he may have directed that a corpse be taken off of an ambulance for a few seconds so that it could be documented by the news media. That's it.

I thought it was violation of Geneva Convention for offensive military units to hide among civilians. IDF was bombing Hezzibulla rocket formation attacking Israeli civilians. They are to blame for Lebnonese civilianlosses, not IDF

Anyone notice that all the dead children seem to be girls?

Oops, read "ajftoo" (whatever the frick that means ;) ).

What many seem to be missing is the context in which this video appears. Over the last week or so, critics of Hezzbulla's PR efforts have pointed to indications that photos coming out of Lebanon might not provide an accurate representation of what's happening. For example, it was pointed out that "Green Helmet Guy" seemed to be posing as a rescue worker, when it appeared that he was in fact a PR officer of Hezzbulla. Photos seemed to show him and "White T-shirt Guy" carrying the SAME dead child back and forth between a bombed-out building and the waiting ambulances. At appropriate times (when they were properly framed) it appeared that they would pause to vent their grief -- grief that was not apparent what appeared to be mere moments before. In other photos, it appears Lebanon's richest real estate baron is shown wailing over the loss of her home -- at least, at last count, three different homes in three different parts of the country have been destroyed. In still other photos, "Some Guy With Hat and Shorts" is shown with others looking through the rubble of some building. Then, in another photo, SGWHS appears to be dead, his stiff body lifted from the rubble by another worker. Still another report, this time from ABC, IIRC, is of a tour Hezzbulla provided reporters and photographers. The report was that reporters were able to interview ambulance drivers about the horrors they'd seen and the photographers were abel to take pictures of the [empty] ambulances racing up and down the street.

In the face of all of these indications that Hezzbulla might be trying to exaggerate or otherwise manage events for propaganda purposes, there was an outcry that bloggers had not proven that -- despite all the "seems", "appears", and "indications" -- the pictures could not be taken at face value. It was in this context of a call for proof that the German video is so interesting. To critics of Hezzbulla's propaganda campaign, this video is the proof their suspicions were correct. To the supporters of that campaign, it's time to change the subject.

Erasmussimo, what is this? While your predisposition still shows, your methodalogy exibits a marked change: Gone is the Erasmussimo bent on blind defense of dogma - replaced by an Erasmussimo dedicated to seeking the truth.

I don't know, but thusfar, I'm proud of you - keep it up.

Erasmussimo:

I suggest that you read the long post I linked in the update above. There is plenty of evidence there of falsification.

Brooklynite--


I am fully prepared to believe that you would do exactly as you state, including parading your daughter's dead body around and putting it on display.

I am very sorry for your daughter. I sincerely hope that she is never (ab)used in the way you propose.

Now German TV (with English subtitles)

I haven't watched the YouTube video, but I have watched news reports on German TV--in Germany--and I have yet to see any that have had English subtitles.

The veracity of this YouTube video strikes me as being about as dubious as the DCI's "AlGore" video--you know, the one that was produced by James Glassman's "astroturf" operation.

Cite to source please. Original source. Some of us actually understand German. And please suggest why a German language operation would have a feed from Lebanon that apparently nobody else does.

Mr. Lindgren, thanks for the link to the detailed analysis of photos. The evidence for falsification of some captions is convincing, as is the evidence for falsification of the smoke. (That was obvious to me the first time I saw the photo). And while the evidence for staging is overwhelming, again, there's a huge difference between staging and falsification.

Moreover, I wonder if the few cases of falsification of captions that have been exposed are in any fashion significant? For example, let's examine closely the rock-solid case of the wailing woman. This lady gets around, and wails a lot. There is no question that she's a model who is used to generate photos. But is this window-dressing or meaningful falsification? The grief is false, but the destruction isn't. Surely you will agree that each and every destroyed residence generated its quota of grief-stricken occupants -- there are thousands and thousands of such people. Here in America, it's standard practice after every house burns down to show photos of the grief-stricken residents poking through the burned-out rubble. We assume that these are absolutely real, but how do we know that the photographer did not ask the residents to move to a more photogenic position? Does that constitute falsification?

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I wonder what we truly mean by falsification in photography. We rightly regard photography as an art form, because the photographer can manipulate the lighting, the camera angle, the field of view, and other variables to produce an emotionally powerful image. The photographs of the fellow running across the bridge, supposedly representing an action shot, and more likely staged -- is it false because the fellow is not running from danger, or is it true because it truthfully represents what happened earlier? Is it re-creation or falsification?

I take a purely intellectual view of these matters. I don't put that much stock in photographs, because I know that photography exists to manipulate our emotions, not inform our minds. Who needs to see photographs of people jumping out of windows on 9/11? It's good enough for me to know that 3,000 people died. There are three images from the VietNam war that nobody will ever forget: the naked girl fleeing the burning village; the colonel executing the bound prisoner; and the college girl kneeling over the body of a male student, looking up at the camera and crying. Those images are seared into the consciousness of everybody who lived through those times, and yet their value is purely emotional, not rational.

There's no question that Hezbollah is attempting to manipulate our emotions. And there's no question that the press is going along with it, because the press sells sensation, not information. But let's remember that all political actors manipulate emotions. The Administration will not permit photographs of flag-draped caskets at Dover AFB, because those images are emotionally powerful. A few years back, Mr. Bush came to my area and met the press at a news site. Afterwards, I visited the site, and was astounded to see, amid the gravel and dirt, a nicely carpeted platform erected in a cunningly chosen position relative to the press location to insure that the press would be looking up at the President. A tiny detail, to be sure, and certainly not falsification. But this kind of thing is standard practice.

In any event, let us not overlook the fact that the great majority of dead people we see in the photographs truly are dead, and the destroyed buildings truly are destroyed. Let's not reject the important truths because Hezbollah is attempting to manipulate our emotions.

Something occurred to me last night: This post was intended to be proof that photographs were staged and the primary intent was to demonstrate that the mainstream media photographers are stooges and dupes, and the secondary goal of course was to just malign the honesty of palestenians, lebanese, hezbulla, etc.

Do we know who was shooting the video? Was it a reporter or someone who is supposedly "neutral"? Or was it some propaganda functionary who was shooting footage that would be edited by ___insert name of bad guys de jour here ___ and released for propaganda purposes?

It just seems a little odd the green helmet guy appears to be giving orders to the person running the videotape.

I imagine that some in this thread will find it objectionable for dead children to be cynically used as props. I do, too.
I also think that it is cynical and disgusting the way that W climbed up on the rubble of the WTC to make his little speeches or the way he conscripting 4,000 soldiers on an aircraft carrier to serve as props so he could strut around in his little flight suit. People engaging in propaganda do such things, I guess.

Asymmetrical warfare is definitely to blame for so many of these problems we are facing. As much as I disagree with AG Gonzales, he does have the interesting point of how the Geneva Conventions don't fully address this new style where one side of the war doesn't have any uniforms or generals or military postures that are recognizable.

However, I think all human beings are due those basic Conventions, and should be offered things like due process and fair trials. It is what helps establish the moral high ground in this war of ideals, and it keeps pure our intentions to defend liberty and enforce democracy.

Some of the hate-mongers demand that we "untie" our hands of those quaint notions of basic human rights, but what then would separate us from the evil doers? Hezbollah enjoys civilian protection because they also provide the social services that the weak central government cannot.

So, how does Israel win this war? They need a Marshall Plan to rebuild the central government and restore the essential services. It is almost the same exact rememdy needed in Iraq. We can fight all damn day, and we are very very good at it, and it is needed to some extent. But because we have no Marshall Plan to turn the lights back on and restore some degree of economic hope to the occupied, they will revert to a 2nd world dictatorship or theocracy as soon as we leave.

Why did we learn nothing from WWII? We restored the name of liberty, used legal trials to punish criminals, and turned the goddamn lights back on in (West) Germany and Japan. That's a win, people! We had two solutions to the two problems. We used military might to defeat the military and the partisans once we became occupiers, and then we turned the lights back on as well. In Iraq, we quickly won the conventional battle but totally fouled the reconstruction, and so we are simply treading bloody water.

Media manipulation has been going on since Hearst helped spark the Spanish-American war and the MSM helped end the Vietnam war. Malkin would prefer that we go back to 1940 and have a blackout on reporting or filming unless it is a government approved Movienews brief with a rousing John Sousa soundtrack and appeals to buy war bonds. I'd rather have the biases be expounded on both sides so I am still have evidence with which I can make up my own damn mind.

Somehow I have little faith that the same demagogue who defended Japanese-American interments in WWII (where there was little or no documented value to be had from the action) is someone who is looking out for the interests of freedom and liberty. She scares me in a way far different from the shrill Coulter / Moore / O'Reilly / Daily KOS. Buchanan makes more sense than she does, and that says a lot. :-(

There are orders of magnitude of difference between using dead bodies ... and in the President going to visit ground zero

Agreed.

I think the dead kid thing is worse, too. But it is a matter of degree.

I think that destroying a building with children inside is far worse than either one.

And, just so we are clear here - I am not a fan of hezbullah.

Both sides are assholes.

te, given your demonstrated lack of ability to make moral judgements...might just as well call them both saints. Its just more noise.

te:

I'm no hagiographer, but didn't most Saints get to be that way by letting themselves be put to death? Humans, on the other hand, tend to fight back when attacked.

So let's posit then that neither side is a Saint. That doesn't make it impossible to draw moral distinctions between the two sides.

Who started the war? Who's war aims are most just?