I think it is important to note that it has been revealed that a news photograph purporting to show Beirut burning was forged by its photographer. Smoke was added, using a tool readily available to Photoshop users, and the job was so badly done, it was laughably easy to figure out what was done. And yet Reuters published the photograph without verifying the source.
This is, as it should be, a blow to Hezbollah’s credibility. And it’s not like this terrorist organization had oodles of credibility to begin with. It’s sad, really, seeing a group of people so fanatical in their hatred, that they’re willing to break the truth to further their agenda. So sure are they of their possession of the truth, that they see no problem in lying to advance it. As I said, sad.
But it’s interesting to note that, around the same time, a short movie spoofing Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was posted to YouTube, supposedly by a 29-year-old amateur filmmaker and skeptic. The problem was, when The Wall Street Journal tried to track down the individual behind the spoof, their trail led them to “a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.” (Hat Tip Odd Thoughts).
Of course, the photographic deception in Lebanon is far more serious than a Republican film spoof that purported to be the work of an amateur, by an order of magnitude, but these events are cut from the same cloth, and are not isolated incidents. In both cases, we see individuals who have abandoned their search for the truth, because they believe that they already have it in their back pocket. So sure are they of the righteousness of their position that they feel no shame in resorting to deception in order to further their agenda.
Not unlike the actions of the Bush Administration to pounce on every little bit of evidence of Iraq’s immediate threat to the Western World, in order to justify an invasion that they had already decided launch.
It’s symptomatic, in my opinion, of something that has gone wrong in our society. So sure are we in our own righteousness that those who disagree with us cease to be just average people with different opinions. Rather than debating ideas, we attack the people behind them, on Swift Boats if need be. And, occasionally, when the facts are insufficient to bolster our cause, we invent them. Too many of us have lost respect for the other. It’s more important to just win the argument than it is to find the truth. Through victory comes truth.
On too many sites in the blogosphere, those who disagree with us are idiots, moonbats, wingnuts), fascists, communists, anti-Semites, closet Muslims, homophobes, you name it. We refuse see those who disagree with us as people like we are, deserving of the same respect. We pounce on every piece of information that confirms our original opinions. We close our minds and we deceive ourselves. Our opponents are our enemies, and there is no shame in stooping to ad hominem attacks or outright dishonesty in order to attack them.
I admit that I’ve done this myself. Few people on the blogosphere can claim the moral high ground. Everybody seems to point fingers. But the fact remains that it takes two or more to tango and if your only defence for your actions is that somebody else did it first against you, you are part of the problem.
I know we can hardly expect a fanatical supporter of Hezbollah to change his stripes. We can only take solace in the fact that his deception has further damaged whatever credibility Hezbollah had in its struggle against Israel. But in my wild optimism, I expect bloggers in the supposedly civilized world to live up to better standards than Hezbollah. We need to step back, stop looking at the other side, and look at ourselves, critically. We need to tone down the rhetoric. And try to shake loose the confirmation bias.
Today, the war hawks in the Middle East crisis are jumping all over the doctored photograph as proof of all of their opponents’ intellectual bankruptcy. They are inventing conspiracy theories over how Hezbollah is magnifying the deaths at Qana, despite the fact that Israel has acknowledged its mistake. This fog over doctored photographs is obscuring mention of the 400 Lebanese civilians who have verifiably died, or whether or not Israel’s actions will actually destroy Hezbollah. The doctored photographs have helped confirm in their heads the truth as they’ve already seen it. And any hope for a valuable dialogue between the hawks and the doves in this debate has been dealt another blow.
Hat tip to Conservative blogger Damian Penny for keeping his head during this crisis by saying:
I don’t believe Israel went out and killed dozens of women and children for sport, and there’s no doubt that Hezbollah, a group not known for strenuous attempts to avoid civilian casualties (Lebanese or Israeli), is milking this for all it’s worth. But it’s still possible to support Israel’s fight against Hezbollah, while conceding that the IDF made a horrible mistake here.
Hear, here, Damian. It’s unfortunate that your commentators aren’t as nuanced.
On another note, it’s interesting that I never saw the photograph in question until after the deception was revealed. And that’s because I’ve become so inured to the violence in the Middle East (sadly) that I pass by any picture of destruction in Israel or its neighbours with barely a second glance. It was the forgery that made me take interest.
This may be an interesting corollary to the old adage that it’s not the crime, but the cover-up that does the real political damage.
August 8, 2006 11:25 PM
My only question here is how this photograph damages Hezbollah’s credibility, rather than simply the photographer’s. If, for example, a similar incident occurred with a picture of a rocket strike on Haifa, would you say that it had damaged Israel’s credibility?
August 9, 2006 2:15 AM
Ah yes… as part of a comment on nonsense and spin during war, you link to Jay Currie, spinner of conspirizoid theories about Iraq’s vaunted chemical weapons ending up in Hezbollah’s arsenal (not to mention leaning on industry-backed ‘think tanks’ to discredit global warning, his vicious bigotry against Muslims, all the war shilling based on lies, and on). Bad call, James; the guy’s a kook whose greatest skill is generating trash-talk. The story happens to fit his poisoned worldview, but it is morally irresponsible to point anyone to Currie’s interpretation of the story. I’m sure you can find better.
Reuters did exactly what a reputable news organization would do after getting false reporting from an employee — they fired the photographer who doctored the image. (Not much of a cover-up there.) I doubt that the reaction from the sewer over at LGF had any effect on Reuters’s decision. That’s real self-correction and admitting fault, not the phoney “self-correction” of the blog world.
Little killbloggers cowering in their basements, by contrast, never let up on the demagoguery no matter how often they and their favourite sources of thought are discredited.
And yes, I realize can be seen as playing into your argument by griping about a crank. My answer is that if you are dismayed by lying demagogues who maintain blogs, don’t endorse their work.
August 9, 2006 6:59 AM
Josh:
As it’s a very public lie, when the lie is revealed, not only does the photographer get discredited, so too does the photographer’s agenda, to some extent.
If somebody were doing this to a picture of Haifa, it would similarly reflect badly on Israel.
Ian:
What makes you think that I’m endorsing all of his work, especially considering this paragraph of mine:
There’s no question in my mind that Jay is a part of that.
The fact remains, though, that photographs have been doctored, in a manner designed to push a particular agenda. And by making a mockery of the statement “the camera doesn’t lie”, the agenda has been damaged.
It seems to be that the war hawks are the ones talking about the doctored photographs. It could be because they are in a full on feeding frenzy over this, hunting and pecking for every little piece of information that could further their agenda, but it makes it difficult to find the photograph among the calmer members of the blogosphere.
August 9, 2006 8:50 AM
James, I will certainly agree that Reuters messed up royally when they published this. It is so clearly altered I can’t quite understand how it slipped through.
That being said, I’m going to side with Josh - this impunes the character and motive of the photographer, not Hezbollah.
How do you know that the photographer’s “agenda” is in line with Hezbollah? It could be that his agenda was to draw attention to the plight of Lebanese, without taking side with Hezbollah. This is not an either or war - it is entirely possible to side with the innocent Lebanese and not be with either Israel or Hezbollah.
This photo was a stupid ham-fisted attempt to add more smoke to a picture for reasons we can only guess at - I think the original, which has been published, is just as effective, since it still shows the burning buildings and the widespread damage. The essence of the photo is still true.
If I take your masthead of St. Geroge Station and photoshop another old woman coming up the stairs, does it cease to be a photo of St. George? If I change the colour of her coat, or add another train, it is still a photo of St. George.
My issue is that this one incident is being used to impune the reputation of one of the worlds largest news gathering organizations, to cast doubt on reports from the theatre from all sources in order to shore up support for Israel. And considering the capabilities of either Mossad or the CIA, perhaps that’s exactly what it was supposed to do.
August 9, 2006 9:16 AM
Your comment is a fair and good question, Mike. I think the difference is one of scale. People are not fighting over territory in St. George station. The altered Beirut photographs are being taken in the midst of a major conflict, wherein the debates are hot, furious, and occurring worldwide.
In this context, we have to note that the adding of extra smoke to Beirut is an attempt to make the damage in Beirut look worse than it is. As Israel’s bombs were responsible for the smoke that was there, adding more smoke can be construed as an attempt to make Israel’s actions seem more destructive than they were. And as this smacks of taking sides, that slips the photograph out of simple reporting, and dangerously into the realm of propaganda. And as this conflict is polarized between Israel and Hezbollah, with innocent Lebanese civilians caught in the crossfire, the Photoshopping of this photograph, with its intent to make Israel look bad, is going to be seen as an attempt to advance the agenda of Hezbollah.
Now that the deception has been discovered, critics of the critics of Israel now have a weapon to turn against their opponents. They can say that our arguments are tainted with the deception of this individual. And that’s why I’m a little ticked. This weapon wouldn’t have been turned against us, if the photographer hadn’t tried to fashion the weapon for use against Israel in the first place.
I agree with you that the statements going on in the hawk side of the Blogosphere that the photograph makes Reuters complicit in a vast anti-Jewish conspiracy is serious tinfoil hat territory. I cannot help but feel that some hawks are focusing on this incident in order to distract attention from the uncomfortable fact that innocent Lebanese civilians have died — yet another example of the fog of war.
Photographs are important because they can powerfully convey a picture of reality that can move more people than mere words. A photograph is worth a thousand words, and misusing a photograph can do as much damage, especially in a heated situation as we have in the Middle East. You see how much fun the war hawks are having over this? That’s the power of photography for you, and that’s why it’s important to come down hard on this sort of deception.
On a completely different note, the header photograph, courtesy the Toronto Archives, is not a picture of St. George station. Care to guess which station it is?
August 9, 2006 9:23 AM
P.S. Could you point me to a URL for the original, undoctored photograph? I’ll post it here.
August 9, 2006 10:28 AM
I’m going to take a stab at Bathurst… or maybe Bay? I’m not on the Bloor line very often.
August 9, 2006 10:59 AM
Good guess. It’s Bay. Looking at the photograph, you might notice some interesting differences between this shot and what a picture from the same location would look like today.
August 9, 2006 12:45 PM
What an interesting way of framing the issue. I like it.
August 9, 2006 4:28 PM
Found this:
http://tinyurl.com/fzrfz
Shows the doctored photo and the undoctored side by side.
August 9, 2006 4:45 PM
Many thanks. I’ve updated the post accordingly.
August 10, 2006 8:32 PM
Thanks James, you make some very good points.
I knew it was on the Bloor line and somewhere in the middle…I used to live at Spadina and Davenport and rode by there a thousand times….