If the Japanese in WWII = The Nazis = Islamofascists = Hezzbollah = Lebanese and The US Marine Corp on Iwo Jima = The IDF = God’s Holy Chosen Warriors then it’s OK to fake a picture of the flag raising and not okay to darken smoke because on one side it’s the Good Guys doing it to defeat Satan and his minoins and on the other it’s the Bad People supporting His Satanic Majesty. It’s a simply calculus, really.

But hasn’t the ‘staging’ theory been discredited? I want my coffee…..

Okay, nitpick: Novato is not a San Francisco suburb; it’s across the GG bridge in another county for crying out loud.

Anyway, yeah, now I can’t trust any photos that don’t come from my own camera. May as well vote Republican!

i think they’ve lost count of how many photos and films of ww1 battles were staged after the fact for propaganda purposes back home…

According to Wikipedia, which we know is always, ALWAYS 100% right, it was not staged.

And Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize pretty much insured the death of conservative irony unto the end of time.

And Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize pretty much insured the death of conservative irony unto the end of time.

I miss Tom Lehrer.

So the great “Sadly No!” catch of hypocrisy is what, exactly?

Some have postulated over the years that Joe Rosenthal somehow staged the second flag raising on Iwo Jima, yet not one human soul have ever been able to provide the first shred of proof that the allegations they raised were true, as even your own cited sources concur.

This is in stark contrast to copious evidence that some (I never said nor implied all, as you scurrilously and inaccurately charge) media photographers in Lebanon staged photos, and individual photos by several others were left suspect. No less an authority on photojournalism than David Perlmutter, a man who quite literally “wrote the book” on photojournalism, has come out strongly condemning the actions of these photographers and the media organizations that they represent in Editor & Publisher.

I’ve only played a small role in exposing some of the photojournalist fraud coming from Lebanon, but I am proud of the work I’ve done, as is Perlmutter, and at least one major combat photojournalist (a Pulitzer nominee, I may add) who has stated to me privately in e-mail that he is impressed with my ability to catch some of the things I’ve noticed in staged and biased photojournalism coming from Lebanon.

That you would try to make a comparison between the unproven and mostly discredited charges against Rosenthal that even your own sources cannot support, and the very real and proven charges that have been levied against some Lebanese war photographers, shows a sloppiness in thinking here that quite frankly, I’ve come to expect.

Guy calls himself a “confederate” and a “yankee”. Irony is among the many logical concepts that elude him, apparently.

Actually, CY, you made the comparison. That was the point of your tribute, nicht wahr?

Not that I expect consistency from you.

…but I am proud of the work I’ve done, as is Perlmutter, and at least one major combat photojournalist (a Pulitzer nominee, I may add) who has stated to me privately in e-mail that he is impressed with my ability to catch some of the things I’ve noticed in staged and biased photojournalism coming from Lebanon.

Also, he’s very handsome. His mother totally told him so. So lay off, huh?

BTW, who is the Pulitzer-nominated photojournalist who dug your material? It’d be nice to know, and not have another, y’know, unsubstantiated statement running around…

BTW, who is the Pulitzer-nominated photojournalist who dug your material? It’d be nice to know, and not have another, y’know, unsubstantiated statement running around…

Pulitzers are nominated by the editors of newspapers and magazines, not by a separate committee. Every year, each paper in the country nominates its list, which gives a field of thousands.

Which isn’t to suggest that the photojournalist in question isn’t talented and professional, but ‘Pulitzer nominee’ by itself, without specifics, is one of those things like ‘member of Mensa’ or ‘graduate of an accredited college.’

“…but I am proud of the work I’ve done.”

You know, I’m pretty sure there are some empty seats on an outbound C-130 if you’re interested in some real work fighting Mexislamoliberalfascism, the kind that doesn’t involve scrubbing Cheeto crumbs out of your keyboard.

CY has a knee injury which prevents him from fighting in the front lines. He got hit by a putt-putt golf ball. He is therefore spending his time commanding the troops from behind his trusty wireless keyboard.

A major country veterinarian who has been honored by the Humane Society for his work stated privately in an email to me that Confederate Yankee has been linked to the molestations of thousands of barnyard animals up and down the East Coast. I would show it here, but y’know, it’s a private email. That would be unethical.

What a fun game.

Some of us live and die by our wireless keyboards.
“…yet not one human soul…” Wow. Just can’t turn of the soap opera drama, can you?
I dunno. The photo looks staged, just from the body language (six guys to put up a pole?) but meh. Good photo.

CY seems to ignore the point, entirely. He is using the real, but minor, photo-changing episode from Lebenon to question every picture that he doesn’t agree with, every shot showing women, children, unarmed and buried in housing rubble to justify his own hands over ears/eyes/mouth. He wants to ignore the real destruction that Israel has enacted on Lebanon in a greater effort to appease his Republican masters, those that grease his skids, that vote for the tax cuts that buy him extra bags of cheetos. It’s very likely that Israel is 100% wrong in what it has done, from possibly sending in soldiers to Lebanon (illegally) to encouraging the escalation of violence from the beginning. Of course, he’ll condemn that as anti-semetic, in order to ignore it like all the photojournalists he doesn’t agree with. Despite it being a condemnation of the military leaders of Israel, and not the people itself (who I have many close friends living in Israel).

It’s just like someone from France proclaiming that George Bush is a fascist dictatorial scum sucking pig. It doesn’t mean that all American’s are, so why create the generalization except to hate the French?

And so the Sadly No! commenting community is sadly unable to handle the truth, once again resorting to personal attacks when the reality-based community is, once again, fresh out of reality.

The combat photographer I mentioned above merely shook his head (metaphorically) when I mentioned the comments here to him, and so I will keep his name to myself.

But David Perlmutter, the author of the Editor & Publisher article mentioned above, was more than happy to shoot holes in the fantasy world constructed here regarding the Rosenthal photo, emailing me the following, with permission to repost it as I see fit (my bold):

The overwhelming evidence, including the testimony of everyone present at the flag-raisings–both of them–was that the photograph that has become the famous icon was NOT staged. In brief, what happened was that Rosenthal took a series of still pictures of both flag-raisings. At the same time, a movie cameraman recorded the full event. The second flag-raising occurred because the first flag was too small to be seen by Marines and other military personnel throughout the island and at sea. Joe Rosenthal did not ask anyone to raise a flag, did not pose anyone raising a flag, and the second flag would have been raised in same way even if there had been no photographers present. In other words, it was 100 percent NOT a staged photo. The complication occurred because at that time photographers rarely developed their own film in the field. Rosenthal put the role in a can and sent it off for developing. Subsequently, the picture of the second flag-raising, the shot that we now recognize as the great icon, became a sensation. Rosenthal, caught up in the battle, knew nothing about his own success. Weeks later, when told that one of his photographs had become celebrated, he assumed that the questioner referred to another photograph in which the military personnel posed around the flag and talked about it as one he helped set up. Unfortunately, even though the error was corrected very quickly, it has become a data virus in the history of photojournalism. I will add that it is also a very hurtful error, both to the men who raised the flag–some of whom were killed in the battle in the days to follow–and to a sensitive and decent photojournalist. As an added note, as any working Photog can tell you, the photo violates some basic schoolbook rules of photojournalism, so, for example, he would have gotten more faces in “stagedâ€? image.

In short, the “brilliant” allegation that inspired this idiotic post is nothing more than the brain fart of a pathetic individual willing to attack an iconic American photograph and the man who took the picture, in order to attack a fairly obscure blogger.

Binkyboy would like to change the subject (a favorite ploy of those loosing an argument), make it appear that the various staged and fraudulent pictures coming out of Lebanon (including a brand new one today where the BBC admits to posing a unwilling Lebanese boy with a live, unexploded Israeli bomb) as isolated events, when in fact a series of well-documented events and suspect photos have cast significant doubts on the veracity of stringer-provided reporting, forcing news agencies to drop hundreds of photographs and issue new guidelines to editors, reporters and photographers alike.

Once more, the “liberal” philosophy is on the wrong side of history and reality, and returns once more to lying to itself to continue the grand delusion. If you ever wonder why you find it almost impossible to sway moderate voters to your way of thinking, this sad post and it’s amusing and illogicial defenders provide an excellent example of why you continue to fail.

CY Sez:

“I’ve only played a small role in exposing some of the photojournalist fraud coming from Lebanon, but I am proud of the work I’ve done, as is Perlmutter, and at least one major combat photojournalist (a Pulitzer nominee, I may add) who has stated to me privately in e-mail that he is impressed with my ability to catch some of the things I’ve noticed in staged and biased photojournalism coming from Lebanon.”

And what newspaper does this other major combat photojournalist write for–The Coastland Times?

In short, the “brilliant� allegation that inspired this idiotic post is nothing more than the brain fart of a pathetic individual willing to attack an iconic American photograph and the man who took the picture, in order to attack a fairly obscure blogger.

Um… CY, I have to say it appears you missed the point of Gavin’s post. In posting the AP story (beneath your quote, if you made it that far), he’s basically pointing out that it doesn’t take much in terms of someone making allegations of fraud or staging to permanently damage the impact of the photograph or the reputation of the photographer, even if those allegations are later shown to be completely false.

So, in the zealous pursuit to discredit the photographs coming out of the Middle East (some of which have admittedly been manipulated), does it matter to you if you’re wrong in some cases? What if the evidence is inconclusive? Are you willing to risk damaging (possibly permanently) the reputation of a photojournalist who may be completely honest if you think it aids you in proving your point?

I’ll stop short of asking what you think it proves that some photos coming out of the Middle East have been doctored (y’know, other than that in the competitive world of journalism some people are less honest than others in trying to make it to the top). I’ll just ask you this: Have you considered the possibility that in some cases you may just be wrong? Do the consequences of that possibilty matter to you at all?

I still wanna know what this cat means, exactly, by calling himself “Confederate Yankee”. A lot of my pappaw’s peers called themselves “Confederates”, which basically was shorthand for “pissed off the South lost the Civil War”.

Is that the case here?

Once more, the “liberal� philosophy is on the wrong side of history and reality, and returns once more to lying to itself to continue the grand delusion. If you ever wonder why you find it almost impossible to sway moderate voters to your way of thinking, this sad post and it’s amusing and illogicial defenders provide an excellent example of why you continue to fail.

You forgot to toss in a reference to the “arena of ideas”.

You mean this Editor & Publisher piece?

“But as with most of the allegations today, the theories about the Rosenthal photo were based on flimsy evidence or speculation. ”

That’s pretty much what we said, pretty much simultaneously with E&P. (We run on German time, which is six hours ahead of EST).

If you ever wonder why you find it almost impossible to sway moderate voters to your way of thinking

…It’s because we’re treasonous dhimmis who should be hung by the intestines of the last camel-kissing hadji, yes I know.

Hey Confederate Loser,

As always, your sub-par reading comprehension skills shine through once again. You have missed the point of the post as Marita has explained. Try re-reading the post a few more times until you get the gist of it.

Sadly No!,
I can’t think of anything more to say about this Blog or the comments.

“The combat photographer I mentioned above merely shook his head (metaphorically) when I mentioned the comments here to him, and so I will keep his name to myself. ”

Oh, this is a very powerful support of your point. You must be a real important guy to be corresponding with “major combat photojournalists” And it’s like awesome that you were able to get a callback from him in the 3 hours between your first appearance here and your pompous second comment.

Uh huh. I imagine the exchange went something like this:

CY: (IM’ing MCP) Check [link]

MCP: LOL.

make it appear that the various staged and fraudulent pictures coming out of Lebanon (including a brand new one today where the BBC admits to posing a unwilling Lebanese boy with a live, unexploded Israeli bomb) as isolated events, when in fact a series of well-documented events and suspect photos have cast significant doubts on the veracity of stringer-provided reporting, forcing news agencies to drop hundreds of photographs and issue new guidelines to editors, reporters and photographers alike.

Goddamit. I must be stupid. I just don’t understand all this. I mean, ok, the photos were doctored. Altered. Photoshopped. This happened in Lebanon, has happened before and will happen again. Why is it such a big deal to the wingnuts? They don’t seem to care if it happens in europe, or japan, or milwaukee. But in Lebanon, under israeli bombardment, it’s critically important. On another thread on this topic a few weeks ago, I was taken to task by some wingnut or another for jumping to the conclusion that this was being done to somehow discredit the reportage from the conflict zone, in order to create the impression that the death and destruction among Lebanese civilians was less than we were being led to believe. I thought that’s what they were saying. So ok, if that’s not the reason, what is? Can one goddam representative of Right Blogistan calmly and in little words explain to me the fucking POINT?

As I see it, there are only 2 possible reasons:

1. All these wingnuts are suddenly deeply and passionately interested in journalistic ethics, and the only place they can find any unethical photo journalists is Lebanon.

OR

2. All these wingnuts would like to use use these examples as evidence that israel’s campaign of destruction actually didn’t hurt people, but they know that argument fails even the most basic logic test. So they continue to bay at the moon over these photos and hope that somebody, somewhere, will conclude that no women or children were harmed by israel’s dropping thousand pound bombs on urban communities.

Well, folks, this is about the stupidest thing I can imagine. If we agree that some photo journalists modify their work product beyond that which is allowed, and certainly this can occur during wartime, can we make them shut the fuck up and get back to the critically important part of somehow making the american and israeli governments live up to some minimal civilized standards of behavior?

mikey

Once more, the “liberal� philosophy is on the wrong side of history and reality, and returns once more to lying to itself to continue the grand delusion. If you ever wonder why you find it almost impossible to sway moderate voters to your way of thinking, this sad post and it’s amusing and illogicial defenders provide an excellent example of why you continue to fail.
====================
Bush and Republican approval ratings aside of course?

CY: You make my point for me with simple points like these:

a series of well-documented events and suspect photos have cast significant doubts on the veracity of stringer-provided reporting, forcing news agencies to drop hundreds of photographs and issue new guidelines to editors, reporters and photographers alike.

Well documented AND suspect, huh? Ok, you’re a pattern guy, I take it. Shall we discuss the patterns of press fakes from the United States? Oh, wait, those are all conspiracy theories, unless you’re doing it? Your selected outrage in cases such as this are well practiced and rehearsed, but in the end, transparent as your mom’s underwear when she’s at her “night job”. I suggest you get over your faux-liberal media rage and try to take a more long term outlook. Besides being much better for your health, you also might have a little self-respect left over.

Damn, wouldja look at that glorious bushthuglican ongoing Mission Accomplished! in Irackistan.

Poor liberals on the wrong side of History and Reality, yet again!

#

Matt T. said,

August 21, 2006 at 22:17

I still wanna know what this cat means, exactly, by calling himself “Confederate Yankee�. A lot of my pappaw’s peers called themselves “Confederates�, which basically was shorthand for “pissed off the South lost the Civil War�. Is that the case here?

Matt: This “touron” wouldn’t know a spot from a croaker. Now he’s tryin’ to pass himself off as a “good ol’ boy” in an area where most of the original families that bothered voting were Yellow Dogs!

The image is iconic. Say what you will, it’s evocative.

Looking at it just now, I thought, “They have conquered an enormous pile of shattered bones. Yay! Bones for everyone!”

War makes me tired.

Is this (CY) the same shithead who couldn’t figure out the whole “wrapped bodies in the rubble” thing? Wow. He may be the stupidest motherfucker on the face of the earth.

Oh, for the love of god.

Look, I only have one question. Let’s assume, for the moment, that there is some kind of conspiracy to change news photos coming out of Lebanon.

WHY? What are these hypothetical news-doctoring journalists POSSIBLY going to gain from this little exercise? Do you really think there’s some kind of rabid crush-Israel bloc within the AP photo staff, and do you really think that if there were, THIS would be the way they’d go about doing it?

He may be the stupidest motherfucker on the face of the earth.

Not while his man-crush, George W. Bush, yet lives.

In the end, it does not matter if every picture coming out of Lebanon is staged; there are still 1300 people dead who wouldn’t be where it not for Israel throwing its little temper tantrum and the wingnuts in the US cheering them on.

[…] Sadly Gavin at the leftist SadlyNoblog just can’t take the fact that some of the photgraphs which came out of Lebanon a couple weeks back were proved to have either been manipulated or staged. […]

I haven’t seen such a blatant example of “the lurkers support me in email!” for years. Even the newbies these days are usually too sophisticated for that.

Ah, Ace, don’t ever change. If you ever realized quoting blinvisible experts only decreased your credibility, you wouldn’t be nearly as much fun.

Whoops! Meant to say Confederate Yankee, of course. Ace, CY, it’s so hard to tell the difference…

And can someone explain to me why so many of these guys have registered a .nu domain name? Do they harbor Polynesian island fantasies or something?

CY does not understand something that every Sadly No! poster knows.

Staging a flag raising is bad, but staging a scene of death and destruction is good.

CY does not understand something that every Sadly No! poster knows.

Staging a flag raising is bad, but staging a scene of death and destruction is good.

Hey look, guys! Another troll has joined the party!

MnZ, troll away all you want, but you may want to hone your skills before you try your luck here. We have fairly high quality trolls around these parts, and it might be difficult for you to compete if the best you can do is a comment like that. Gary Ruppert, for one, has the good sense to stay completely off-topic in his comments, so that he doesn’t have the chance to put a complete lack of reading comprehension skills on display. You might do well to follow his example.

Alternatively, you could try reading the post until you have some slight comprehension of the contents before commenting. Just sayin’.