| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
UPDATE August 4: S., the original source of this letter, has sent in the following retraction:
To Robert Spencer, Charles Johnson, and their readers,A few days ago I wrote an open letter to the press agencies that supplied the Qana photos. Astute readers on both Jihad Watch and Litle Green Footballs quickly pointed out holes in technical details of my letter.
They were right. I was wrong. I apologize to Robert, Charles and their readers for having unintentionally misled you all.
The only reason I waited a day to issue this statement is that I spent yesterday thoroughly researching the issue in technical papers, and with an internationally recognized expert in the field. The bottom line is that the information I thought couldn't be altered, can; and that once altered, it can't be retrieved. Worse yet, certain news organizations, when processing digital photos, damage or erase this information in their process of their normal workflow.
One of the best qualities of Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs is that the standard of truth was maintained, despite the wish that that truth were different.
Sincerely,
S.
Jihad Watch reader S., who works in the photography business, has composed this letter about the Qana photos. For background on the controversy, see here.
To Whom It May Concern,Many powerful photographs were taken following the recent tragedy at Qana. Legitimate questions have arisen regarding the actual times certain photos were taken.
News agencies have begun responding to some of the questions raised. Here is AP's response: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/08/01/ap2920008.html
The AP had three different photographers there who weren't always aware of what the others were doing, and filed their images to editors separately, said Santiago Lyon, director of photography.There are also several reasons not to draw conclusions from time stamps, Lyon said. Following a news event like this, the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit.
The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse all distributed photos of which questions have been asked relative to the time shot. What Lyon of AP does not address, is that the exact time of digital capture is recorded along with the image. This EXIF information cannot be altered, and would give accurate timings as to the sequence of all photos released.
We urge AFP, AP, and Reuters to make available to this website a small JPEG file, with all EXIF data attached, of each of the photos analyzed on the various websites that have raised this issue. A list will be provided if they are not already known. Sensitive IPTC data may be removed, if any responding agency wishes. The EXIF is the only important data.
The actual capture times, between photos of all agencies, would then be made a public record -- chips falling where they may.
It is the responsibility of a free press to ferret out information that those in power wish to withhold. It is the responsibility of an informed citizenry to openly request information from press sources when there is the appearance that they are withholding information critical to their mission of maintaining the public trust.
We await response from AP, AFP and Reuters that could lay to rest this one important issue.
Posted by Robert at August 2, 2006 12:55 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Pallywood , the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1oq7oGO_N8&mode=related&search=
Posted by: cosmicAvenger![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 2, 2006 1:15 PM
Does AP stand for allah's Press? Does it mean allah pukes? Allows Propaganda? AFP mean allah's freakin' pissants? Allows False Pictures?
Or could it be all of the above? After watching the hezpallywood video a couple of days ago, I'm having a REALLY hard time believing anything they post.
Posted by: freewoman at August 2, 2006 1:16 PM
Greetings to Robert Spencer and contributors to this creative forum.
Earlier I posted following explanations based on behavior/response conditioning (remember Ivan Pavlov's dog experiment)
1) A group of people (believers) have been able to enjoy the fruits of other creative civilization without contributing for advancement.
2) Infidels are conditioned to expect certain behavior and response from believers. Average human psyche sees something as abnormal only if there is deviation from the conditioned behavior/response.
One explanation for unbelievers behaviour can be found in Pavlov's experiment. Civilizations of Unbelievers and press in general are conditioned by responses from Believers. This conditioning has happened over the last 1000 years. In the baseline for normal behaviour of believers extreme intolerance, violence and bigotry has become included. Since Unbelievers have been conditioned to expect this behaviour from believers, they do not find it abnormal or deviant.
However in the Baseline behavior of unbelievers intolerance, violence and bigotry has been excluded. As a result whenever there is any sign of deviation Press goes berserk.
Desi.
PS:- Since I myself am a unbeliever I am reluctant to quote religious context explicitly. So I have used unbelievers/believers :-) :-)!!!
Posted by: Desi at August 2, 2006 1:40 PM
The mainstream media, or how Limbaugh calls it, The Drive-By Media, is not used to being questioned and have it's propaganda, er, I mean, reporting on an issue examined and dissected. But they don't realize it's a new day, people now can access facts and information in ways they couldn't before. We have the ability to actually check up on them thanks to so many Internet sources. I've come to have more confidence in the information that JW and DW present than anything ABC, CBS, CNN, etc., has to say. They no longer a monopoly on shaping the views of people.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at August 2, 2006 1:58 PM
it is interesting that you can tell a bogus or biased news reporter instantly. I agree the internet has been most helpful. I have noticed the reporters trying to ask leading questions or to try to interject opinion into their interviews. They try to get people to say anything anti American or Anti freedom. They express glee when panning the "civilian scenes of tradgety" and actually frown when the interviewee states that the problem lies with the terrorists.
The reports seldom use Islam and terrorist in the same sentence. They prefer fighters, insurgents, rebels, Hezbollah, Hamas , Lebanese, Iranians, anything except calling a terrorist a terrorist.
THey never report that Islam very guideline call for death to ALL non believers.
These reporters --what a bunch of slugs.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 2, 2006 2:15 PM
In the baseline for normal behaviour of believers extreme intolerance, violence and bigotry has become included.
Believers in what? Nazism? Marxism-Leninism? Islam? pyschoanalysis? aromatherapy?
In point of fact, the behaviour of those who profess the first three is characterized by "extreme intolerance, violence and bigotry" for what that is worth. However, the very fact that several belief-systems share these similarities suggests that something so schematic is unlikely to be of much interest here - let alone of sufficient interest for you to post it in just about every thread on Robert's board, thereby wasting his bandwidth and clogging up the threads with something of little interest to most readers of them.
It is Islam and specifically the notion of jihad, which is central to it, that is the subject matter for this site. And it is the specific content of Islam not some generalized schema that is of interest here. People come here, because after many years of study people like Robert are able throw light on specific matters and deepen their understanding of what jihad is about and what they should expect. To retreat from the specific to the general is to go in the wrong direction here.
It is more urgently important for infidels to learn, for example, about the Shi'ite concept of najis - what it means, what the intention behind it is, what the history has been, what it leads to - than it is for them to read about Pavlov's dog for the nth time.
Posted by: Yojimbo at August 2, 2006 2:20 PM
"the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit."
That's for sure. Please recall the reportage on Rachel Corrie's fatal misstep around IDF tanks engaged in destroying bomb smuggling tunnels under some Palestinian homes. Initial pictures showed her standing in the vicinity of a particular model, but the actual vehicle that backed over her was quite different, one that affording the driver much less visibility of what was immediately behind him.
Pictures themselves may not lie, but photoeditors can certainly doctor them or present them in such a way as to mislead.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 2, 2006 2:38 PM
I looked at the photos linked above. The pictures of the small child, in death, are tragic. What is almost equally as disturbing is the idea that her little body was held aloft in several photos, as a sort of exhibit A, rather than treating her body with the respect that it deserved in death. Maybe those present were counting on the fact that the photographers, with names like Mohammed and Nasser, would use the dead child to further the murderous goals of Hizbollah.
Posted by: Mary Rose at August 2, 2006 2:43 PM
You know what they say, if you've ever seen sausage made and what its made from you will never want to eat it again.
Likewise if you've ever seen news film edited....
Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 2, 2006 2:54 PM
Press, journalists in a war zone, working in conjunction with the enemy = the enemy. Well that' makes it easier doesn't it! It seems that they are now officially the Hezbollah press corps.
Posted by: IceDragon at August 2, 2006 2:56 PM
Associated Press
News Agencies Stand by Lebanon Photos
By DAVID BAUDER , 08.01.2006, 04:26 PM
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/08/01/ap2920008.html
From the article:
"For example, the Web site draws attention to a photo by AP's Lefteris Pitarakis time stamped 7:21 a.m., showing a dead girl in an ambulance. "
....obviously an Irish Catholic photographer
"Another picture, stamped 10:25 a.m. and taken by AP's Mohammed Zaatari, shows the same girl being loaded onto the ambulance. "
.....uh-huh, another Irish Catholoic photographer ....
"In a third, by AP photographer Nasser Nasser and stamped 10:44 a.m., a rescue worker carries the girl with no ambulance nearby. "
....just as I thought a Swedish agnostic photographer ....
"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.
...as a matter of fact -- I do!
"I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."
As you say Patrick, a picture -- and it's time stamp -- are worth a thousand words!
How dare anyone question your Irish-Catholic-Swedish-Agnostic photographers!
Just who do we think we are?
Posted by: witness at August 2, 2006 3:08 PM
The doubts about the Qana events are now being discussed in the mainstream press---in German: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of today:
not just the photos themselves but the staging of the whole event.
Posted by: Russell at August 2, 2006 5:00 PM
The New Duranty Times put a picture of the very same series, with the same Hezbollah operative (mustached-and-bearded, with the helmet, and the orange jacket, the one who appears in every single one, holding what appear to be the same two bodies over and over again at different times, in different places, the same Hezbollah operative who can be seen in pictures taken at Cana in 1996 --right on the front page, the very day after the story broke at EU Referendum and then at www.littlegreenfootballs.com. I wonder who, among those on The New Duranty Times, had that story pointed out to them -- when it was too late, when they had already gone and added to the list of the gullible.
And I wonder if The New Duranty Times, which carefully avoided publishing any of those Danish cartoons, will now attempt to evade its responsiblity to discuss a series of quite possibly deliberately staged events, not just at Qana, but also by Muslim Arabs on many occasions, including of course the strange story of Mohammad al-Dura. Will the story run in the Times? Or will they ignore it, as not worth that paper's imperial attention? But why not worth it? Surely the propaganda value of these events, and the testimony of various people as to the way in which Arabs have been known to keep bodies frozen in morgues and then brought out, recycled corpses, for the ghoulish display, is worth discussing -- isn't it?
Posted by: Hugh at August 2, 2006 5:58 PM
and the truth as stated - photographed by the MSM continues.
Posted by: Texican at August 2, 2006 6:00 PM
Hugh, at the very least, this story should be on the front page of the NY Post or the NY Sun with a headline to the effect: "AND THE HAVE THE GALL TO ACCUSE "US" OF TABLOID JOURNALISM"
Posted by: Infidel33 at August 2, 2006 7:06 PM
Face it, Israel is doing everything it can to LOSE the war of public opinion. Their military spokesmen have forgotten the first rule of successful propaganda: NEVER APOLOGIZE!
You never see Hezbollah or any other Muslim group apologize except when they unintentionally kill other Muslims as in Nazereth. Israel should use the same tact. Only apologize for friendly fire or the accidental deaths of NON-MUSLIMS. As for deaths of civilian supporters of Hezbollah or Hamas the response should always be the same, "This is war and in war people die. Next question."
Posted by: Provoslavni at August 2, 2006 8:58 PM
cosmicAvenger-
Than you for posting the Pallywood vid. It's excellent. It speaks truth to bs.
Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2006 9:00 PM
Yeah, the muslims in the photos are GREAT liars.
The Bible says Satan is the Father of Lies.
Guess we know who allah REALLY is.
Posted by: The Goobs at August 2, 2006 9:05 PM
Robert, they will never do it because if the evidence is damaging to Hizbulluh they will never be allowed in to report again. Hizbulluh controls access of news reporters and agencies in Lebanon, so what do you think the chances are of them allowing honest reporting and freedom of the press?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 2, 2006 9:50 PM
I have successfully changed the EXIF data on some of my own pics. It's easy to do on a computer with an application called a "hex editor". Download one and try it on your own photos. A Google search will give you lots of choices of freeware editors. AP or anyone else can change the EXIF timestamps on their photos to reflect any timeline they wish. You can change the camera type to be a "Kodak Brownie" or anything else you want. The only restriction would be that the changes would have to fit within the same area, or "field" as the original. Asking for the raw photos from AP wont prove a thing. The visual clues will have to do.
Posted by: signaller at August 2, 2006 10:04 PM
BTW, I stand with Israel.
Posted by: signaller at August 2, 2006 10:05 PM
After reading the Open Letter to AP, AFP, and Reuters about the Qana Photos posted earlier by Robert I had to admit that I didn't know much about the EXIF information in digital photos. I couldn't imagine why this information couldn't be manipulated, so I decided to do a little research.
It was very simple, really. All I had to do was type in a simple search in Google (search for the following words ("OR" must be in uppercase): exif jpeg OR jpg) and I found numerous references to programs that claimed to manipulate any part of the EXIF info - including the time stamps!
I certainly wouldn't put it past any news agency to manipulate the facts. I expect they do it all the time - they even get caught at it now and again. Are we naive enough to believe that the only times they've fabricated stories is when they've been caught doing it?
From exploding gas tanks in pickup trucks to, more recently, a major news anchorman losing all credibility and, ultimately, his job over fabricating a Bush scandal just prior to the election - it's not about the truth, it's about getting the scoop on the big story.
What makes anyone think that AP, AFP, and Reuters wouldn't fix the image headers to avoid their own news scandal? After all, if THAT story broke they'd have some major 'splainen to do, don't you think?
Robert, if you know something that proves that EXIF headers can't be manipulated please re-post and 'splain to us why the various programs that claim they can edit this data can't really do it.
Unless the EXIF information can be proven accurate, I don't think we can ever know if the news agencies are telling the truth.
Posted by: Trebuchet at August 2, 2006 10:09 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)