November 14, 2006

Fauxtograph: Hizbollah Worked With Lebanese Army

Remember the many fauxtography mysteries brought to you by the MSM in the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict? We helped solve at least one of those, but many more remained.

For instance, we knew there was something fishy about this photo. We knew G. Gordon Liddy was a good shot, but even we couldn't believe he had taken out an Israeli fighter with an AK-47.

(photo courtesy of White Trash Republican from one of our contests)

Now, the man who took the actual (and by actual, I mean real) photo, claims that Time magazine knew it was misleading the public when they captioned it to suggest that Hezbollah had downed an Israeli plane. Unless, of course, they bought Hizbollah's propaganda without verification. Which, come to think of it, isn't so far-fetched after all. The Hizbos were fighting the J-O-Os, you know.

Further, he says that other photos taken at the scene indicate that the fire was actually started when Israel bombed a medium range ground to ground missile launcher hidden in a large truck. The evidence, he says, suggests that the Lebanese Army was working with Hizbollah. Go read Bruno Stevens' account here.

And why not run a fake photo of G. Gordon Liddy in the scene? It's no more misleading than the Time caption that ran with the original photo of a Hezbollah terrorist posing (where G. Gordon is above) in front of a fire.

time-mag-caption-downed-plane-hezbollah-fire-fauxtography.jpg

You'll remember that there was a little back and forth over the picture between Allah and Dan Riehl at the time. We bought (my post) Allah's analysis that it was a tire fire at what appeared to be a dump. A dump it may have been, but not as in 'city dump', only in the sense of This is what the parking lot of a Lebanese Army base looks like---a dump!

Ace sums up why what Bruno really said in his caption vs. how Time magazine characterizes the photo matters:

That makes three [mis]representations thus far by Time:

1) Hezbollah did not score a huge victory by shooting down an IAF jet.

2) The target was clearly legitimate.

3) Not only was this a legitimate Hezbollah target, it was parked on a Lebanese Army base, demonstrating cooperation between the Lebanese Government -- depicted as an innocent and abused third-party to this conflict by the media.

Allah asks this important question:
Did Time have that photo in hand when it chose to describe the vehicles as nothing more than “Hezbollah trucks”?
The blogfather, Charles Johnson, says:
The anti-Israel bias of mainstream media has never been revealed more nakedly; the editors who selected this photograph deliberately changed the caption to convey an anti-Israel message, throwing the truth right out the window to do it.
But is it deliberate? I don't think so. Snapped Shot says:
For this to continually happen means that somebody sitting in the Editor's chair is either (a) deliberately trying to shape the news, a gross violation of the public trust placed in them, or they are (b) too completely incompetent to distinguish facts and circumstances from the photographic and captional evidence presented to them.
If those are my only two options, I'll go with incompetent. For now.

Dan Riehl, on the other hand:

Well, what would you expect from a magazine which had both Stalin and Hitler as persons of the year.
Indeed.

And Michelle is waiting for the MSM ethics peeps to chime in.

Let me qualify the incompetent excuse. Incompetence mixed with a tinge of hope that Hezbollah actually had shot down an Israeli plane. Why bother to verify what you hope in your heart is true? Yes, I think it's that bad.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 02:32 PM | Comments |