I sometimes wonder just how proffesional Reuters is. Being the world-renowned news company that they are, you would think the editors wouldn't let something like this pass. But apparently, it happened. Animated Illustration So... add a bit of smoke, clone a few buildings, and win a Pulitzer! This, by the way, is the apparent original. And here you have Reuters' response. This guy needs to take Photoshop lessons, I think. And if you think it ended here, think again. Missiles? Original caption: [i:0cc5bde084]An Israeli F-16 warplane fires missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, August 2, 2006. (LEBANON) 02 Aug 2006 REUTERS/Adnan Hajj[/i:0cc5bde084] Well, to start it all, those aren't missiles. Those be flares. Now, Notice a pattern? Copy-Paste? I figure there was only one flare there to begin with, myself. And last time I checked, flares aren't used to attack stuff. As for the "bombs", or whatever those things in the picture were, let us take a closer look shall we? Copy-Paste. And a bit of smudge and blur on the middle. And I have yet to see a jet that does both a high-G evasive manuever AND drop bombs, so I'm guessing those 'bombs' aren't even from that picture in the first place. Also, we have this photo, [i:0cc5bde084]"Journalists are shown by a Hizbollah guerrilla group the damage caused by Israeli attacks on a Hizbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, July 24 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)"[/i:0cc5bde084] And yet, we also havethis, [i:0cc5bde084]"A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)"[/i:0cc5bde084] Notice something... familiar around the hit building? I think this comic sums it up nicely. edit: To view the original smoke pic, copy the link and paste it. Apologies for the added effort involved.
[quote:97e3427ac3="Roman_K"]Also, we have this photo, [i:97e3427ac3]"Journalists are shown by a Hizbollah guerrilla group the damage caused by Israeli attacks on a Hizbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, July 24 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)"[/i:97e3427ac3] And yet, we also havethis, [i:97e3427ac3]"A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)"[/i:97e3427ac3] Notice something... familiar around the hit building?[/quote:97e3427ac3] To be fair, neither caption says the building was hit that night, just that the attack took place at night... But yes, the whole thing still is a mess... When you're in a hurry to get an illustration for the latest news, you don't have time to check exactly when where and who, you might lose viewers !
[quote:1576d3dd88="Roman_K"]I sometimes wonder just how proffesional Reuters is. Being the world-renowned news company that they are, you would think the editors wouldn't let something like this pass. But apparently, it happened. [/quote:1576d3dd88] That really is a bad fake, the smoke looks so non-real that I'm surprised that Reuters "didn't notice".
[quote:a29732126e="Katcal"] To be fair, neither caption says the building was hit that night, just that the attack took place at night... But yes, the whole thing still is a mess... When you're in a hurry to get an illustration for the latest news, you don't have time to check exactly when where and who, you might lose viewers ![/quote:a29732126e] Indeed. Only with crap like this, you may lose even more viewers. The whole company even, if you offend someone who can afford suing. So... best stick to being a proffessional methinks. It may earn a bit less, but it's steady and you don't get too many scandals.
Heh, the first thing I noticed on the plane picture was the flares, I was looking for the missiles thinking the flares had been launched to avoid them, then realised the flares were supposed to be the missiles, which aren't really in the right place whichever they are.
Unbelievable really. It's so obvious when it's pointed out, but how many just glance over these pictures in newspapers... That's probably what they are counting on. It gets the effect without the actual damage. SOme of these photographers must be pushed a lot to get the most effective material possible. The sad thing is it probably isn't about showing the shocking effect of the situation. It's mostly just competition. It was in the Singapore Post this morning as well....on the front cover.... the news of the actual conflict was on the 7th page.
Jeez. How lame. Just why? Its not really less work in the long run, or cheaper, once you deal with the malcontents who don't like being fed doctered images. Some people.
I am almost sure something like this was pointed out on the Daily show only it was from some political campaign ad involving the World Trade Center. I'd say that black and white tabloid at the supermarket checkout counter is getting too much competition these days, or is it company?
Yes, this was pointed out in the latest Back in Black segment on Mid-term Elections. As Mr Black had put it, someoen thought that 9/11 needed more "ooomph"
Yeah, because 9/11 [i:3f6942d0f8]so[/i:3f6942d0f8] missed "ooomph". The downright inconsiderateness of some terrorists.
