Pictures Kill

Adnan Hajj, prolific photojournalist who took many of the suspect photos in Qana, used software to doctor a picture of Beirut, adding smoke and some buildings, generally making the devastation appear much worse than it was. This was published by his employer, Reuters, which - despite its stated policy "to send news to our customers only after scrutiny by a group of production editors who ensure quality standards are maintained across all our news services" - did not notice that the photograph shows blatant evidence of bad manipulation.

As Charles Johnson if Little Green Footballs points out: "Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There's really no question about it.

"But it's not only the plumes of smoke that were 'enhanced.' There are also cloned buildings."

It has been described as "the worst Photoshop I have ever seen," but Reuters' production editors apparently missed it.

They did, however, react, once they were caught.

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters, perhaps unintentionally providing the worst excuse out of Reuters since Stephen Jukes, the wire service's global head of news, explained: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist... To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."

Well, one terrorist's propagandist is Reuters, which has reacted by pulling the picture -issuing a "Picture Kill" - and telling Hajj it would not use any more of his pictures since he was caught doctoring this one.

They are not, apparently, planning on investigating other doctored photos, by this or other "photojournalists".

Why, other than blatant anti-Semitism or support for the terrorists, are the media so willing to serve as propagandists? They have to understand that pictures kill, that words are as much weapons as sticks and stones, and that the press of the free world is more powerful than the World War II technology missiles used by the Islamic fanatics.

Fear is the answer.

The media is cowardly.

Christopher Allbritton wrote in his blog:

To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one.

Now, he insists that this is not unreasonable restrictions:

I'm going to get in trouble for this, but I think it's a reasonable restriction. This is the exact same restrictions placed on journalists by the Israeli army and by the Americans in Iraq. I don't think threatening journalists is cool at all, and it certainly doesn't endear me to them, but that has been the extent of Hizbullah's interference in our coverage.

Why do I think it's a reasonable restriction? Because I believe in staying neutral as a journalist. It's not my job to help out the IDF or Hizbullah. Just as I wouldn't give away Israeli positions, I won't give away Hizbullah positions. By doing either, I threaten the neutrality that we depend on here for our access and our credibility. Morally, I also think by giving away positions that could get people killed, whether they're Hizbullah or IDF soldiers, is to aid in the possibly killing of another human being. I'm really not comfortable doing that.

Of course, Allbrighton is being disingenuous, as Israel and the Americans do not threaten journalists. At most, they revoke their credentials and send them away. Even then, what makes it unreasonable is that Hizbullah is not a government but a terrorist organization.

Allbrighton also claims that he hardly even sees Hizbullah. Other journalists are admitting a different story:

CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon was stage-managed from start to finish by Hezbollah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by HezbollahÂ’s "press officer" and that Hezbollah have "very, very sophisticated and slick media operations."

When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program Reliable Sources, Robertson acknowledged that Hezbollah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hezbollah "had control of the situation," Robertson said. "They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath."

Robertson added that Hezbollah has "very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access into those areas. You don't get in there without their permission. We didn't have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hezbollah fighter by night."...

Robertson is not the only foreign journalist to have misled viewers with selected footage from Beirut. NBC's Richard Engel, CBS's Elizabeth Palmer, and a host of European and other networks, were also taken around the damaged areas by Hezbollah minders. Palmer commented on her report that "Hizbullah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see."

Hizbullah runs the show, and a slick show it is. Hizbullah threatens journalists. Journalists report Hizbullah propaganda.

You decide.