All Blog Posts from Public Eye

The New York Times' blog The Lede highlights an interesting tidbit from a story out of Afghanistan that generated headlines this weekend. Fleeing and ambush, U.S. Marines "opened fire on civilian cars and pedestrians on a busy highway in eastern Afghanistan, wounded Afghans said," according to the AP. "Up to 16 people were killed and 34 wounded in the violence." A suicide car bomb had gone off and militants fired on an American convoy, which returned fire.

Following the incident, freelance photographers working for the AP were taking pictures when "a U.S. soldier deleted their photos and video showing a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing." The photographers said the soldier told them that they didn't have permission to take photographs.

A U.S. military spokesman said he did not have any confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating cameras or deleting images," writes the AP.

The AP "plans to lodge a protest with the American military."

Last week’s revelations that a freelance Reuters photographer had doctored photos of air strikes on Beirut – apparently to make it seem as though there was more intense smoke and destruction – is still grabbing headlines. (Although at least one critic thinks it should be grabbing more attention than it is.) CNETNews.com reminds us (via Lost Remote) with this slide show of doctored photos that have made the rounds in the past and garnered their own share of controversy -- remember this one?

Read full post…

We noticed last week that after some bloggers and talk radio hosts aired their suspicions about various news outlets staging photos of the aftermath of Israeli air strikes on Qana, accused news agencies actually responded. In an Associated Press article detailing the accusations, the outlets responded by denying the photos were staged.

While that controversy seems to have dissipated somewhat, questions suggesting that another photo taken during air strikes on Beirut was doctored arose -- and yesterday Reuters pulled the altered photo and said it was no longer accepting pictures from the photographer. According to the Jerusalem Post, the photo "which shows plumes of smoke rising from downtown Beirut after an IAF bombing, appeared to have been doctored to show more intense smoke and destruction over the city." (FishbowlNY has the photo, with and without alterations.) The photographer, Adnan Hajj, "was among several photographers from the main international news agencies whose images of a dead child being held up by a rescuer in the village of Qana, south Lebanon, after an Israeli air strike on July 30 have been challenged by blogs critical of the mainstream media's coverage of the Middle East conflict," according to a Reuters story, which also included a comment from Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters: "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." Nonetheless, the statement continued: "This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him."

UPDATE: Reuters has discovered that Hajj altered another photo and has withdrawn from its database all 920 photos taken by the photographer, a move that a Reuters photo editor called "precautionary."

Read full post…

It's an issue that's become another challenge in covering a war that is increasingly dangerous for reporters -- accuracy in photography. In today’s National Journal, Neil Munro takes a look at why mishaps like this one, can happen:

On January 14, for example, shortly after unmanned U.S. aircraft fired missiles at several suspected leaders of Al Qaeda who were thought to be staying in the village of Damadola, Pakistan, Agence France-Presse distributed a picture said to be from the scene. AFP is based in Paris, and the picture was sent by one of its locally hired photographers, a stringer. The photo showed a piece of military equipment placed on a damaged stone wall, flanked by a solemn old man and a young boy. Another firm, Getty Images, also distributed the photo to picture editors at newspapers and magazines around the world. The New York Times published it in the paper's January 14 Web edition, and Time magazine ran the picture in its January 23 print edition, along with the caption "Detritus from the latest U.S. raid in Pakistan."

But the caption was wrong, the pose was staged, and the picture was, in essence, untrue.

Read full post…

The big political news today, at CBSNews.com and many other outlets, is that there might be photos of President Bush and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Together. Possibly Shaking Hands And Everything.



Why is it such a big deal that there are, according to Washingtonian and Time magazines, "about a half-dozen" photos showing the pair together? Well, actually, it's probably not. To explain why, let me begin by quoting someone I wouldn't normally: White House counselor Dan Bartlett. (This isn't a knock on Bartlett specifically – it's just a title like that is essentially a flashing neon sign warning of disingenuousness.)



Here's Bartlett's spin, which for once rings true:

"I don't think that would be fair to jump to any conclusions just because the president took a picture with somebody. People understand that the president of the United States goes to events like these all the time in which there will be people who get their pictures with the president."

The events about which Bartlett speaks are the countless functions that take place at the White House and other venues; according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, "the president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events." I'm not sure exactly how much "tens upon thousands" is, but the guy does take a hell of a lot of photos. Hell, he hosted 26 Christmas parties alone this year. There aren't photos taken at every one of these, of course, but a quick pause, awkward handshake, and weary smile from the president in the direction of a camera can be is one of the easiest, cheapest, and most effective ways to reward an ally. He or she gets a picture with good buddy Dubya to put on the office wall to show off access and power; Bush, in turn, locks up another "pioneer" for the next election cycle. For a president, pausing for a few thousand pictures is a no brainer.



So is it really a surprise that the man who until recently was the most well connected lobbyist in Washington seems to have scored a few photos with Bush?

Read full post…