#SMUG #ELITISTS think Believing Is Seeing at the #NYTimes?

September 3, 2011

toysYikes: NYTimes Puff Piece on Mickey Mouse Photos from Lebanon? Remember when photographers like Ben Curtis got caught placing child’s toys in rubble in Lebanon bomb sites? The NYTimes debates whether such dishonesty has any truth it it. It is almost as if they are claiming bullshit is art. Why can’t the media just apologize? Say.. gee I’m sorry… I did wrong. why can’t the propaganda machine admit that what they are doing is unethical. Instead we get a backhanded comparison to some civil war photographer that placed cannonballs to tell a story. It is annoying that this paper has no integrity. Rather then owe up to unethical behavior they are now trying to spin their sins. That takes a lot of Chutzpah.

Israel Matzav: If the Mickey Mouse was in a building that was bombed out, what is the likelihood that it was undamaged like that? And second, if the toy wasn’t planted by someone (and I believe Curtis that he did not plant it), then how is it that at just about every bombing site that was photographed during the Second Lebanon War, posed pictures of children’s toys would show up? Could that be coincidence? I doubt it.

Zombie Time: While it may be possible that these photographers all just happened to stumble on toys and stuffed animals perfectly positioned for maximum emotive response, the cumulative effect of all the pictures together (along with others visible on Slublog) suggests that some if not all of the photographers moved the toys to be better positioned for a good photo. Several readers have also written in to point out how new, clean and undamaged the toys look — unlikely, if they had all just been in an explosion. But this is not a definitely conclusive example of fraud — it’s almost impossible to prove that a photographer moved an object to his benefit. Instead, the images just feel faked.



Ben Curtis alludes that fake MSM photos were the Neo Cons fault

January 5, 2010

so it’s the perception that caused you to exploit the viewer with posed and digitally edited photographs? a Fool Born Every Minute:


BEN CURTIS: Maybe it always was. I myself get all my news from the Internet — primarily the AP wire. I don’t watch much TV, I don’t have access to a wide range of English language papers, so I get most of my news from the Internet. Now, when you get news from the Internet, and especially if you’re getting it from blogs, you can really fine-tune the range of opinions that you receive on a daily basis, and you can fine-tune it to just those opinions that conform to your opinion.
so it’s OK for Ben to use the internet to communicate with his radical element, but he is threatened by those Neo-Con blogs

BEN CURTIS: And when you understand how people who work for the media work and the difficulties they have there is a lot of mundane reasons why things happen — light, dust, cameras, trying to compress everything into one image. If the public understood more about the process, then perhaps there’d be less suspicion of it, although I suspect that’s probably not the case.

but when people do try to understand the process (like on blogs) then you are suspect of that? don’t you think that statement is a bit arrogant Ben? Assuming that it isn’t your fault that your media is abused in the media it is presented in, it is irresponsible and exploitative to not present the context or to make motions to clarify. Ben would have his audience believe the photographer has no intent in taking a picture of a toy in the scene of destruction. Then why was the technique used repeatedly?


It’s important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories.

The four types of photographic fraud perpetrated by Reuters photographers and editors are:



1. Digitally manipulating images after the photographs have been taken.


2. Photographing scenes staged by Hezbollah and presenting the images as if they were of authentic spontaneous news events.

3. Photographers themselves staging scenes or moving objects, and presenting photos of the set-ups as if they were naturally occurring.

4. Giving false or misleading captions to otherwise real photos that were taken at a different time or place.

via zombietime.com

Ben Curtis alludes that fake MSM photos were the Neo Cons fault

January 5, 2010

so it’s the perception that caused you to exploit the viewer with posed and digitally edited photographs? a Fool Born Every Minute:


BEN CURTIS: Maybe it always was. I myself get all my news from the Internet — primarily the AP wire. I don’t watch much TV, I don’t have access to a wide range of English language papers, so I get most of my news from the Internet. Now, when you get news from the Internet, and especially if you’re getting it from blogs, you can really fine-tune the range of opinions that you receive on a daily basis, and you can fine-tune it to just those opinions that conform to your opinion.
so it’s OK for Ben to use the internet to communicate with his radical element, but he is threatened by those Neo-Con blogs

BEN CURTIS: And when you understand how people who work for the media work and the difficulties they have there is a lot of mundane reasons why things happen — light, dust, cameras, trying to compress everything into one image. If the public understood more about the process, then perhaps there’d be less suspicion of it, although I suspect that’s probably not the case.

but when people do try to understand the process (like on blogs) then you are suspect of that? don’t you think that statement is a bit arrogant Ben? Assuming that it isn’t your fault that your media is abused in the media it is presented in, it is irresponsible and exploitative to not present the context or to make motions to clarify. Ben would have his audience believe the photographer has no intent in taking a picture of a toy in the scene of destruction. Then why was the technique used repeatedly?


It’s important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories.

The four types of photographic fraud perpetrated by Reuters photographers and editors are:



1. Digitally manipulating images after the photographs have been taken.


2. Photographing scenes staged by Hezbollah and presenting the images as if they were of authentic spontaneous news events.

3. Photographers themselves staging scenes or moving objects, and presenting photos of the set-ups as if they were naturally occurring.

4. Giving false or misleading captions to otherwise real photos that were taken at a different time or place.

via zombietime.com