Reporters and Guns II

[Mycroft]

In another gun related example of media ignorance, making the rounds of some of the more conservative blogs right now is this picture from Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/082701iraqplane/im:/070814/photos_ts_wl_afp/140e13087c8865bec0c22bcf01aa597b


The claim is this picture is purposeful propaganda fed to an uncritical media sympathetic to an anti-war stance, but I'm trying to understand the ignorance of a photographer in a war zone who apparently can't tell the difference between a round that was fired and one that was not fired. My own experiences with guns is slight, but even I was able to see the problem immediately.

[Pope130]

Perhaps the gunmen involved need a mite more training. You're supposed to put the cartridges in a rifle and fire them, not just throw them.

[Giggywig]

In another gun related example of media ignorance, making the rounds of some of the more conservative blogs right now is this picture from Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/082701iraqplane/im:/070814/photos_ts_wl_afp/140e13087c8865bec0c22bcf01aa597b


The claim is this picture is purposeful propaganda fed to an uncritical media sympathetic to an anti-war stance, but I'm trying to understand the ignorance of a photographer in a war zone who apparently can't tell the difference between a round that was fired and one that was not fired. My own experiences with guns is slight, but even I was able to see the problem immediately.
You are not spinning the story right. This is obviously a step in the right direction in Iraq, since gunmen have moved from shooting each other to throwing cartridges at each other.

or maybe whoever wrote the caption needs to at least watch a war movie or cop show...

[richardm]

If I was feeling charitable I'd suggest that something got lost in translation - it is a French agency.

[Crossbow]

From the caption in the photograph:


An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. ...


Therefore, the woman pictured was the source of the erroneous information while the "media" was simply reporting what she said.

People say incorrect things all the time, however the "media" is not in error when it accurately reports things that a person may say. Indeed, that is supposed to be the job of the "media"; to report the facts as accurately as possible and leave any interpretation of these facts to their public.

[LTC8K6]

It's a fairly common propaganda attempt to claim civilians are being deliberately targeted. The woman has no clue what she's holding, is my guess.

It's not like this is the first time bogus "bullet hit me" photos have been in the "news".

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/busted-bogus-baghdad-bullet-story.html

Might even be the same woman. It's the same propaganda producing photographer.

[Just thinking]

There was a commercial a while back (I believe for Isuzu) where a person is showing that the car has rapid acceleration -- faster than a speeding bullet. Anyway, a bullet is fired from a gun and moments later the car takes off in an attempt to go past it while still in flight. The frame shows the car passing by the bullet (in flight) in a rather unbelievable situation. The "bullet" was still in the round, intact. That's right --- the gun somehow fired the entire round through its barrel, not just the bullet.

Now --- just how many people designed that commercial and then allowed it to go on the air as is without anyone catching this blunder of blunders?

[quixotecoyote]

It's a fairly common propaganda attempt to claim civilians are being deliberately targeted. The woman has no clue what she's holding, is my guess.

It's not like this is the first time bogus "bullet hit me" photos have been in the "news".

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/busted-bogus-baghdad-bullet-story.html

Might even be the same woman. It's the same propaganda producing photographer.

It sure looks like the same woman.

[Just thinking]

It's a fairly common propaganda attempt to claim civilians are being deliberately targeted. The woman has no clue what she's holding, is my guess.

It's not like this is the first time bogus "bullet hit me" photos have been in the "news".

At least the article makes a good attempt at investigating the victim's claim.

[Ziggurat]

Therefore, the woman pictured was the source of the erroneous information while the "media" was simply reporting what she said.

Well, no. That is in principle a possibility, but you cannot say that is the case because you only have the reporter's word for what she said.

People say incorrect things all the time, however the "media" is not in error when it accurately reports things that a person may say.

Sure that happens. But if they're doing their job, then 1) they should only be reporting what people say if it's newsworthy, and 2) if what they say is obviously wrong (as in this case), they should note that and indicate why. But that didn't happen here, did it? Under the standards you're setting up, the AP could report that somebody said that American troops were killing babies in the street - without mentioning the fact that it's a homeless dude having alcohol withdrawl hallucinations and there isn't a soldier within 100 miles. They're "accurate" in some very narrow sense of the word, and yet that's not acceptable reporting, is it?

Indeed, that is supposed to be the job of the "media"; to report the facts as accurately as possible and leave any interpretation of these facts to their public.

Well, no, that's not their job. There is no single set of facts to be reported. There are mountains and mountains of facts, they cannot all be reported, and readers can't wade through all of them even if they could. A reporter's job is to find the important facts and report them. They have to filter events, otherwise they're useless.

So if this is just some random woman holding bullets that were never fired from a gun, why the hell is it of any significance to anyone if she claims that these bullets hit her house? Furthermore, if you think that it is for some reason newsworthy (I can't see why, but I'll allow for that possibility), the caption should then have noted that the shell casings were still on the bullets, indicating that the bullets weren't actually fired, and leave the reader to decide whether she's lying or just really confused. But that's not what happened, is it? That's not how the story was presented. And neither the reporter nor any editor anywhere in the chain of handling this story ever decided that maybe the fact that the casing was still on the bullets was a relevant detail. Why is that? It's amazing that you're trying to excuse that. I can understand a reluctance to attribute malice, but jeeze, to not recognize that this is at least a story of total incompetence is, well, delusional.

[Mycroft]

People say incorrect things all the time, however the "media" is not in error when it accurately reports things that a person may say. Indeed, that is supposed to be the job of the "media"; to report the facts as accurately as possible and leave any interpretation of these facts to their public.

By that standard our media should be filled with reports from all the people who believe they talk to Jesus (or whoever), claim miraculous powers, see space aliens or know the final secrets of the Illuminati. Fortunately modern journalism classes still teach journalists to filter out the nonsense and concentrate on the issues of relevance.

I'm skeptical that this photo and it's caption is a purposeful act of propaganda by the media as the conservative blogs imply, but there is no doubt that it is horrendously bad journalism both on the part of the photographer and the editor who let it by.

[Ranb]

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/like-a-suppository-only-stronger

Above is a link to a silly little video explaining the differance between cartridges and bullets. Some of the people that post here should watch it. Educational videos like this one would be helpful for those on this forum who claim it is illegal for Americans to own silencers, short barreled (sawn off) shotguns or machine guns without a license or permit. Ditto for those who think that pistols can not be used for hunting. :)

Ranb

[The Fool]

By that standard our media should be filled with reports from all the people who believe they talk to Jesus (or whoever), claim miraculous powers, see space aliens or know the final secrets of the Illuminati. Fortunately modern journalism classes still teach journalists to filter out the nonsense and concentrate on the issues of relevance.

I'm skeptical that this photo and it's caption is a purposeful act of propaganda by the media as the conservative blogs imply, but there is no doubt that it is horrendously bad journalism both on the part of the photographer and the editor who let it by.


Imagine you are a Journalist....a person at an accident scene reports to you that god saved her from dying in the accident. Another person reports that the car flew through the air, another tells you they were lucky to not get killed. So what do you report? Do you add disclaimers about luck, supernatural beings.....and that cars cannot really fly?

Just curious but are civilians really being shot in Iraq?

you are actually correct about one thing. Journalists (good ones) filter out the nonsense and concentrate on the issues of relevance......The Issues of relevance being civilian deaths and the views and feelings of people who are actually there.....even if they are old ladies... and the nonsense being people picking over the pictures looking for chances to spin fog and mirrors.

[Ziggurat]

Imagine you are a Journalist....a person at an accident scene reports to you that god saved her from dying in the accident. Another person reports that the car flew through the air, another tells you they were lucky to not get killed. So what do you report? Do you add disclaimers about luck, supernatural beings.....and that cars cannot really fly?

A car accident is newsworthy because it's a car accident, not because of any supernatural cause anyone attributes any part of it to. But why is this story newsworthy? The only reason is if bullets actually hit her house after being fired from a gun. Otherwise it's not newsworthy at all. And we know it isn't: those bullets were never fired, they're probably not even US military, and it's quite possible the cameraman simply staged the woman with the bullets to begin with.

But even assuming no malice on the photographer's part (something we cannot rule out), the equivalent scenario isn't someone at an accident scene saying that god saved them, it's someone in a crosswalk saying that god saved them from being hit by a car, without noticing that the car stopped because there's a stop sign. Is that news? No, it really isn't.

But you, apparently, don't care about the actual contents of the story, so long as it addresses the issues that you feel are critical. Well, that's not good enough. "Fake but accurate" doesn't cut it.

[Mycroft]

Imagine you are a Journalist....a person at an accident scene reports to you that god saved her from dying in the accident. Another person reports that the car flew through the air, another tells you they were lucky to not get killed. So what do you report? Do you add disclaimers about luck, supernatural beings.....and that cars cannot really fly?

Any or all of those reports could be reported, but if one of the eyewitnesses brings forth "evidence" that's obviously fake, then the reporter giving it a platform would be seriously irresponsible.


Just curious but are civilians really being shot in Iraq?

So by this standard, it would be okay for a reporter in your home town to make up a fire and "report" on it, because sometimes buildings really do burn down in your home town?


you are actually correct about one thing. Journalists (good ones) filter out the nonsense and concentrate on the issues of relevance......The Issues of relevance being civilian deaths and the views and feelings of people who are actually there.....even if they are old ladies... and the nonsense being people picking over the pictures looking for chances to spin fog and mirrors.

So fake is okay as long as it supports the narrative you like? :oldroll:

[The Fool]

Sorry dudes...much as you dislike stories about civilian deaths in Iraq and old womens houses being shot up....well, ok, maybe that doesn't happen and dotted throughout the destruction are many many pristine old womens houses.

Picking apart pictures like 911 conspiracy theorists to shed doubt on the obvious.

Innocent people.......... civilians, are getting shot up....lots of them. Spin it however you like. I know you chaps don't want to support the right wing blogs, even the right wing blog members that post here......I'm sure there is some other sound reason for you to parrot thier methodology on this forum.

[The Fool]

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/01/11/in-the-slums-of-baghdad/


Here is a nice picture....its the one at the bottom...I'm not in ANY way suggesting that there are no children in Iraq that have positive opinions of the USA.....but doesn't it make you think....hmmmmmm?? Ziggurat thinks maybe the cartridges in the OP pic were setup by the photographer....maybe this flag was given to the child for the photo .....not that I'm a conspiracy theorst, just asking questions is all I'm about......

The picture was also enhanced with photoshop, something Malkins site admitted and added a disclaimer later....enhanced....Hmmmmmm....not a conspiracy theorist here...just asking questions. How enhanced? as enhanced as they admit too? just asking questions....

you know the sad thing here? The issue should be the welfare of this and other children and not fools like me prattling on about the puicture, a blatant propaghanda photoshopped setup on the face of it.......so lets all prattle on about the picture....stuff the child welfare work being done by americans its the picture thats the issue.

there are a few other pictures in that link that you picture processors can work on....knock yourselves out sheding some doubt on the issue the article was putting forward... you know how its done. The satelite dishes on what are claimed to be "poor people's" homes should be a good start eh?

[Big Les]

The two things are not comparable. The CTists pick apart photos with subjective pseudo-analysis to try to shed doubt on the overal story - to create gaps for their "god". The example in the OP is demonstrably incorrect.

The ends (showing that civilians are dying in Iraq), do not justify the means (misrepresenting images). The truth matters, and this example does not represent truth.

[The Fool]

The CTists pick apart photos with subjective pseudo-analysis to try to shed doubt on the overal story - to create gaps for their "god". The example in the OP is demonstrably incorrect.

The ends (showing that civilians are dying in Iraq), do not justify the means (misrepresenting images). The truth matters, and this example does not represent truth.
In what way was the image in the op misrepresented and who misrepresented it? Are you claiming that this old woman showing unfired cartridges ( which freely litter warzones) when she rants about something casts doubt on what she is ranting about?

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat thinks maybe the cartridges in the OP pic were setup by the photographer....maybe this flag was given to the child for the photo .....not that I'm a conspiracy theorst, just asking questions is all I'm about......

The significance of him holding the flag might change if you knew that he was handed that flag, but unlike the AFP, the whole thing does not actually become a lie if that was what happened. Nice attempt at excusing what's at best shoddy journalism of the part of the AFP. Really, The Tool, you should at least expect minimal competence from journalists, but apparently you don't even want that standard applied to them.

The picture was also enhanced with photoshop, something Malkins site admitted and added a disclaimer later....enhanced....Hmmmmmm....not a conspiracy theorist here...just asking questions. How enhanced? as enhanced as they admit too? just asking questions....

The answer to which is in the disclaimer itself: "The subject was backlit in the original photo so I used Photoshop to adjust the lighting and remove a small amount of grain."

[Ziggurat]

In what way was the image in the op misrepresented and who misrepresented it? Are you claiming that this old woman showing unfired cartridges ( which freely litter warzones) when she rants about something casts doubt on what she is ranting about?

Evidence that unfired cartridges litter war zones? And even assuming the most generous interpretation possible, it's enormously incompetent for a photographer who's been assigned to cover a war zone to not know the difference between an unfired cartridge and a buttet. It's also enormously incompetent for none of the editors to have noticed the difference either. Does no one in the AFP have even the slightest familiarity with anything at all related to guns? Really, The Tool, why do you find such incompetence excusable?

Oh, that's right: they've got the correct narrative. They cover the issues you want covered. Facts? Who needs facts?

[The Fool]

Evidence that unfired cartridges litter war zones?

Ask people who have been there...dropped while refilling magazines...racked through the chamber while clearing a stoppage. Unexpended ammunition....a very common litter item in a war zone.


And even assuming the most generous interpretation possible, it's enormously incompetent for a photographer who's been assigned to cover a war zone to not know the difference between an unfired cartridge and a buttet. It's also enormously incompetent for none of the editors to have noticed the difference either. Does no one in the AFP have even the slightest familiarity with anything at all related to guns? Really, The Tool, why do you find such incompetence excusable?

Oh, that's right: they've got the correct narrative. They cover the issues you want covered. Facts? Who needs facts?

Once again...in what way was the picture misrepresented? It wasn't....do you simply wish the story to be not told because the old lady couldn't find the exact cartridge that penetrated her bed as she claimed happened (or maybe didn't claim was the exact projectile but was translated as such). There is an endless supply of triviality for you to spin.

But what of the Malkin pictures? Not interested in giving them the once over?....poor people arrive in SUV's? have satellite dishes? Journalists digitally alter pictures but don't mention it until a later update....claims that children are lining up to greet US troops yet the viehicle has a big sign on it saying do not approach? The story smells a bit fishy eh? But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just asking questions....

Such journalistic incompetence.....but not the sort of incompetence that annoys you? endless spotty youth in blogland picking over pics for your entrtainment....why has nobody with this wonderfull new hobby thought of Malkin as a subject? Not a conspiracy theorist...just asking questions.

[Ziggurat]

Once again...in what way was the picture misrepresented? It wasn't....

The picture was represented as the woman holding bullets. But she is not holding bullets. She is holding unspent cartridges. That's a misrepresentation. And it's a misrepresentation whether or not it was made in good faith. And until you can get your tiny little head around that fact, further discussion with you is pointless. Is it difficult being this stupid? Because honestly, I don't think I could do it if I tried.

[Mycroft]

Sorry dudes...much as you dislike stories about civilian deaths in Iraq and old womens houses being shot up....well, ok, maybe that doesn't happen and dotted throughout the destruction are many many pristine old womens houses.

Ah, now here is where you personalize the argument. You want to shift the focus away from the facts, and make spurious claims about what Ziggurat or I want the news to be.

But what Ziggurat or I want from the news is irrelevant. The fact is that in this specific case, a serious misrepresentation was made.

Picking apart pictures like 911 conspiracy theorists to shed doubt on the obvious.

What is "obvious" is that an unspent shell is different from a fired bullet. All your twisting and spin can't change that.

Innocent people.......... civilians, are getting shot up....lots of them. Spin it however you like. I know you chaps don't want to support the right wing blogs, even the right wing blog members that post here......I'm sure there is some other sound reason for you to parrot thier methodology on this forum.

Again you try to personalize the argument by shifting focus to the person and not the issue.

[Big Les]

I actually don't even know what the fool is on about vis other photos, reports and incidents. I took an interest in this one because of the bullet/cartridge distinction.

I'm a liberal (definitely by US standards, probably by UK ones) against the war and absolutely against civilian deaths. If the woman says she had bullets come through her house and that they were fired by allied forces, that's anecdotal evidence for something really quite plausible. The story itself could quite easily be 100% true. But it is still being misrepresented by the photograph.

The truth matters, as does the evidence for it, and the representation of it. "Our" (as in, the posters that happen to disagree with you) political alignments don't matter, and neither do yours. Genuine incident or not, this one has been misrepresented. Am I getting through to you?

[The Fool]

The picture was represented as the woman holding bullets. But she is not holding bullets. She is holding unspent cartridges. That's a misrepresentation.

No...its called semantics. And it is apparently what is most important to you. The term "bullets" is often used in general speech to refer to cartridges. The description of the photo appears quite accurate to me. The old woman is making a quite funny error.... But anyway, lets not talk about the old woman and what her situation is like. She has nothing to do with the really important central issue of what she scooped up and waved at the camera and what word was used to describe it while she was ranting. Maybe she did think it was one of the projectiles that was flying around..oops, did I say flying? Of course I should include a disclaimer that bullets don't actually "fly" as thier path is ballistic...or maybe it is accurate to use the word "fly" ....have I discovered an even more important issue than the bullet/cartridge international crisis?



And it's a misrepresentation whether or not it was made in good faith. And until you can get your tiny little head around that fact, further discussion with you is pointless. Is it difficult being this stupid? Because honestly, I don't think I could do it if I tried.
Lol....tiny little head? Carefull zig, Mycroft the personalization policeman will be on to you :)

[Mycroft]

...The term "bullets" is often used in general speech to refer to cartridges...

That is true, however the caption clearly said she was claiming these bullets hit her house.

Keep this up. I like showing off the lengths you will go to rationalize the absurd. :)

[Mycroft]

The truth matters, as does the evidence for it, and the representation of it. "Our" (as in, the posters that happen to disagree with you) political alignments don't matter, and neither do yours. Genuine incident or not, this one has been misrepresented. Am I getting through to you?

Bravo!

Facts shouldn't be held hostage to political ideology.

[The Fool]

That is true, however the caption clearly said she was claiming these bullets hit her house.

Keep this up. I like showing off the lengths you will go to rationalize the absurd. :)


so lets get this straight....you believe that the caption clearly saying she was claiming these bullets hit her house is a misrepresentation?.......a "serious" misrepresentation?

what is it misrepresenting...


If I showed you a picture of a man holding up a football that was captioned "man shows football he says he just pulled out of his nose" would that be a misrepresentation? Would you require the jouranalist to add a disclaimer regarding the obvious anatomical problems with claims about footballs passing through nasal passages?

[Big Les]

Your analogy is an irrelevant caricature of the argument being made here. A story about an woman in a war zone whose house is hit by bullets possibly fired by "the good guys" is a plausible and newsworthy story. Your example would be neither of those, because both the photograph, and the story it illustrates, would both constitute misrepresentation. Whether anyone is suckered into believing either:

a) The ball shown is the one pulled out of his nose.
b) The man really did pull a ball (that one or a different one) out of his nose.

..is irrelevant. It's still misrepresentation, and still wrong. The OP is a far more subtle situation than your example, and quite possibly highlights a real incident of a civilian under fire, as well as the broader issue of civilians in Iraq in general being vulnerable to military firepower.

But it's still misrepresentation, whatever the intentions of the journalist or the subject, and however true the bigger picture behind it may be. It's a question of the ends justifying the means. I don't think they do.

[The Fool]

Your analogy is an irrelevant caricature of the argument being made here. A story about an woman in a war zone whose house is hit by bullets possibly fired by "the good guys" is a plausible and newsworthy story. Your example would be neither of those, because both the photograph, and the story it illustrates, would both constitute misrepresentation. Whether anyone is suckered into believing either:

a) The ball shown is the one pulled out of his nose.
b) The man really did pull a ball (that one or a different one) out of his nose.

..is irrelevant. It's still misrepresentation, and still wrong. The OP is a far more subtle situation than your example, and quite possibly highlights a real incident of a civilian under fire, as well as the broader issue of civilians in Iraq in general being vulnerable to military firepower.

But it's still misrepresentation, whatever the intentions of the journalist or the subject, and however true the bigger picture behind it may be. It's a question of the ends justifying the means. I don't think they do.

well, the chances of the football being the one he pulled out of his nose is zero....the chances of the amunition the old woman is waving were fired at her house are zero.... But I don't see the description of either example as misrepresentation. Man waving football he says he pulled out of his nose...Old woman waving ammunition she claims was fired at her house....

Journalistic ethics and standards are complex issues. Could I ask what caption for the old Iraqi woman you would be happy with (happy to say is not misrepresentation?)

[Ziggurat]

No...its called semantics. And it is apparently what is most important to you. The term "bullets" is often used in general speech to refer to cartridges. The description of the photo appears quite accurate to me.

Common incorrect usage is not an excuse. Not when the distinction is critical to evaluating what actually happened.

The old woman is making a quite funny error....

That's one of several possibilities. It's funny how you discount other possibilites for lack of proof, and yet assume that you need none for your own version to be accepted as fact. And whether or not it was originally her error, it was at best compounded by the same error on the part of the AFP.

But anyway, lets not talk about the old woman and what her situation is like. She has nothing to do with the really important central issue of what she scooped up and waved at the camera and what word was used to describe it while she was ranting.

We have no information beyond that photo and caption about what her "situation" is. The fact that the photo is misrepresented is rather critical to any honest evaluation of what her situation might actually be. But you're not interested in any honest assessment, you only want to advance a particular narrative. False "facts" which promotes this "true" narrative are excusable, and any challenge to to false facts is represented as an assault on the "truth".

[Big Les]

well, the chances of the football being the one he pulled out of his nose is zero....the chances of the amunition the old woman is waving were fired at her house are zero.... But I don't see the description of either example as misrepresentation. Man waving football he says he pulled out of his nose...Old woman waving ammunition she claims was fired at her house....

Journalistic ethics and standards are complex issues. Could I ask what caption for the old Iraqi woman you would be happy with (happy to say is not misrepresentation?)

It's not the caption that's the problem (though taken with the photo, it's misleading); given a different photo it would be fine. Either one of one of the actual bullets, or just one of the woman. For me, this photo is the graphical equivalent of a leading question. It's been chosen because it rams home the message of civilians at risk of injury due to the war (a valid message) but with disregard or ignorance of what's actually being depicted that undermines said message, as well as the perceived credibility of the whole incident.

It's a relatively unimportant gaffe by a lazy journo. But it is misrepresentation.

[Mycroft]

well, the chances of the football being the one he pulled out of his nose is zero....the chances of the amunition the old woman is waving were fired at her house are zero.... But I don't see the description of either example as misrepresentation. Man waving football he says he pulled out of his nose...Old woman waving ammunition she claims was fired at her house....

Journalistic ethics and standards are complex issues. Could I ask what caption for the old Iraqi woman you would be happy with (happy to say is not misrepresentation?)

It's not that complex an issue. Things that are obviously false should not be presented as news. Since the odds of both stories being true are zero, neither makes the cut.

Was that hard?

Keep it up. Someday this thread will be offered up as evidence of your concern for the truth. :)

[fuelair]

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/like-a-suppository-only-stronger

Above is a link to a silly little video explaining the differance between cartridges and bullets. Some of the people that post here should watch it. Educational videos like this one would be helpful for those on this forum who claim it is illegal for Americans to own silencers, short barreled (sawn off) shotguns or machine guns without a license or permit. Ditto for those who think that pistols can not be used for hunting. :)

RanbA .50 can take any North American game - as can a S&W .460 and IIRC a Casull .454 (which, conveniently, can be fired from a .460.).:)

[The Fool]

Is anyone at all who is critical of the Caption, who says it is misrepresentation, willing to present what thier alternative caption would be?

[Ziggurat]

Here's a better alternative:

"An elderly Iraqi woman shows two cartridges which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. The cartridges are unspent, and could not have been fired from any gun. No fired bullets were found at her house."

Of course, that's a nothing story, and wouldn't have made the wire (for good reason). But at least something like that would have been honest and correct. Oh, and if there were fired bullets which were found at her house, that's what they should have photographed, not these unspent cartridges.

[Ranb]

Is anyone at all who is critical of the Caption, who says it is misrepresentation, willing to present what thier alternative caption would be?

An Iraqi woman holds two 5.56 mm rifle cartridges she claims were found after a raid by coalition forces near her home.

Short and sweet. Let the attached article tell the rest of the story.

Ranb

[The Fool]

An Iraqi woman holds two 5.56 mm rifle cartridges she claims were found after a raid by coalition forces near her home.

Short and sweet. Let the attached article tell the rest of the story.

Ranb
your alternative is a fabrication.

5.56?? found near her home?... She was claiming more than that according to the original caption. Are you sanitiziing this to match what you think most probably happened?

[The Fool]

Here's a better alternative:

"An elderly Iraqi woman shows two cartridges which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. The cartridges are unspent, and could not have been fired from any gun. No fired bullets were found at her house."

Of course, that's a nothing story, and wouldn't have made the wire (for good reason). But at least something like that would have been honest and correct. Oh, and if there were fired bullets which were found at her house, that's what they should have photographed, not these unspent cartridges.
What is the purpose of your speculative additions? "no bullets found at her house"

[Ziggurat]

What is the purpose of your speculative additions? "no bullets found at her house"

To illustrate the sort of information any half-decent reporter should be digging up, but which you apparently have no real interest in, despite claiming to want to know about the woman's "situation". Like I said, in the event that bullets which were actually fired were found, those are what should have been photographed, not the unspent cartridges.

[Ziggurat]

your alternative is a fabrication.

5.56??

Yes. If that is not the correct calibur, the reporter should have investigated to find out what it was. That's called reporting, something you have no interest in.

found near her home?

Having reading comprehension problems? His version doesn't indicate that the bullets were found "near her home". It indicates that the coalition raids were performed near her home. Which is exactly what the original version said.

She was claiming more than that according to the original caption. Are you sanitiziing this to match what you think most probably happened?

Since the additional ingormation she was claiming clearly did not happen (those are not bullets which hit her house), it's quite reasonable to leave it out. That's not sanitizing, that's editing. It's part of the process of reporting. Journalists are supposed to act as filters. They're useless if they don't.

[Ranb]

your alternative is a fabrication.

5.56?? found near her home?... She was claiming more than that according to the original caption. Are you sanitiziing this to match what you think most probably happened?

What did I fabricate? You asked for an alternative. Since I was not there, I will assume that the woman was not lying. It seems you only read half of my post, it is not necessary to tell the whole story with the caption. A caption just supplies a short description of the picture.

The cartridges she is holding up appear to be 5.56 nato, or 5.56x45 or 223 remington if you want. What kind of cartridges do you think they are? Did you shoot the 5.56 in your army days?


Ranb

[Big Les]

Shades of the leg=drumstick debacle here I fear.

[The Fool]

What did I fabricate? You asked for an alternative. Since I was not there, I will assume that the woman was not lying. It seems you only read half of my post, it is not necessary to tell the whole story with the caption. A caption just supplies a short description of the picture.

The cartridges she is holding up appear to be 5.56 nato, or 5.56x45 or 223 remington if you want. What kind of cartridges do you think they are? Did you shoot the 5.56 in your army days?


Ranb
Yes. I used 5.56 in something we called the "Armalite". It was the Original M16, your guys called it "The Black Rifle". A fine weapon if kept clean. I picked it up off a Sypathetic armourer and kept hold of it. Our standard rifle was a large powerful FN that we called the "SLR". I much prefered the Armalite because most of my work was running around doing errands I prefered the much lighter and more effective Yankee plastic rifle. Every single round I ever saw for it was copper Jacketed even the bloggers are arguing about the apparently silvery jacketed round in the pic.

I'm not suggesting you deliberately fabricated anything. Just that further pedantic picking over the picture may make your caption false. We give this a special perjorative term when it is applied to Iraq pics...its called "fabrication"

[The Fool]

Shades of the leg=drumstick debacle here I fear.

Early days yet.....It may get even sillier :)

[The Fool]

Journalists are supposed to act as filters. They're useless if they don't.

Filter out what? Things that are not "True"? Who decides what is "True"?


Do you understand that anything filtered is in grave danger of becoming opinion?

[Mycroft]

Is anyone at all who is critical of the Caption, who says it is misrepresentation, willing to present what thier alternative caption would be?

Easy. No caption at all.

Not every photograph taken makes it to print. Since this one obviously doesn't represent what it claims to represent, it should have been culled. Either by the photographer, who should have known better, or by any one of the editors along the line.

[Mycroft]

Filter out what? Things that are not "True"? Who decides what is "True"?

You are in rare form today! :)

You don't need to get philosophical to know those rounds were not fired. That's a simple matter of observing the evidence.


Do you understand that anything filtered is in grave danger of becoming opinion?

No. That the rounds pictured have not been fired (as was claimed) is objective fact. It's not a matter of opinion at all.

Keep it up, though. I love seeing you in full woo woo mode. :)

[Ziggurat]

Filter out what? Things that are not "True"? Who decides what is "True"?

Filter out things which are not significant.

Do you understand that anything filtered is in grave danger of becoming opinion?

Do you understand that the volume of possible information to report on is so massively large that without filtering, reporting becomes completely useless to the consumer? Do you realize that because of limited resources in conveying information to the public, it's not even possible to report without filtering? No, evidently you don't, The Tool. Filtering always has happened, and always will happen, because that's the only way news reporting can ever work at all. That filtering will happen is a given, but the competence with which it is done is not a given. Apparently, you have no interest in making sure it's done with even marginal competence.

[The Fool]

Easy. No caption at all.

Not every photograph taken makes it to print. Since this one obviously doesn't represent what it claims to represent, it should have been culled. Either by the photographer, who should have known better, or by any one of the editors along the line.
unusual for you to not be able to formulate an opinion.


Any of the Malkin pics going to get culled in your world?

[The Fool]

Filter out things which are not significant.

Once again you are proposing that value judgements be made for censorship purposes but no proposal as to who is the censor..



No, evidently you don't, The Tool.

getting a bit bored eh? or just running out of material?


anyway...I don't think a single picture that shows one particular group in this Iraq conflict in a good light is significant.....ok to cull them all? In the absence of any other suggestions of who holds your proposed quality control powers... I have appointed myself as the grand poobah judge of significance


Are you aware of the importance of a free press in a civilized society? In what way does your proposed censorship system enhance it?

[The Fool]

Honestly....some of you guys make me laugh and some make me sad. Here is a pic showing EXACTLY what a person was doing and reporting EXACTLY what she said......your response is to call for supression and censorship. Saddam would have been proud.

[Ziggurat]

Once again you are proposing that value judgements be made for censorship purposes but no proposal as to who is the censor.

Damn, but you're an idiot. Filtering is not the same thing as censoring. And among other things, it's quite clear from my post who is supposed to be doing the filtering: the journalists and their editors. They ALWAYS filter. It's not possible to NOT filter, a very simple and obvious concept which you fail to grasp.

anyway...I don't think a single picture that shows one particular group in this Iraq conflict in a good light is significant.....ok to cull them all?

If you were a photojournalist, that would be your call. If you were a photo editor at a news organization, that too would be your call. Otherwise, it's someone else's job.

In the absence of any other suggestions of who holds your proposed quality control powers... I have appointed myself as the grand poobah judge of significance

I didn't suggest who gets the power. I indicated who already has that power: the journalists themselves along with their editors. And they use it all the time. They have to, otherwise no work will ever get done. I never suggested placing that power anywhere else. All I ever suggested is that they do a more competent job. But once again, competence is of absolutely no concern to you. No surprise, since you exhibit none yourself.

[Ziggurat]

Honestly....some of you guys make me laugh and some make me sad. Here is a pic showing EXACTLY what a person was doing and reporting EXACTLY what she said......your response is to call for supression and censorship. Saddam would have been proud.

Is it basic logic or basic grammar which eludes you? The caption said, "An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City." The caption indicates that what she is holding are bullets, not simply that she says they are bullets. But they are not: they are cartridges. Now, there might be some justification for a literal parsing if they has said she was "shows what she said are two bullets which hit her house", but that's not the same thing. You have been consistently wrong about this, and transparently so.

As for suppression and censorship, once again, I never called for anything like that. I called for a bit of competence, which is apparently completely alien to you.

[Ranb]

Filter out what? Things that are not "True"? Who decides what is "True"?

Do you understand that anything filtered is in grave danger of becoming opinion?

In my "expert" opinion, the woman is not holding bullets that hit her house; unless someone threw them at her house with their hands. :) Therefore, I can say that if she did indeed say that those were bullets that hit her home, then what she said is not true. This is one of those things that are easy to say, like 2+2=5 is not true.

Is it too much to ask that if reporters are going to report on weapons use that they know the difference between rifles and machine guns, or bullets and cartridges, or pistols and revolvers, or air rifles and firearms, or dummy cartridges and live ammo? I think it is not too much to ask.

Ranb

[The Fool]

As for suppression and censorship, once again, I never called for anything like that.
well, you rationalise your desire for censorship with the following...

"Filtering is not the same thing as censoring"

well of course its not zig, its only censorship if you don't agree with the supression of an image..If its your Idea to have the image supressed then of course you don't want it called censorship..



and here you are at it again...
"Since this one obviously doesn't represent what it claims to represent, it should have been culled."


As far as I can see the Image claims to represent an image of what an old lady looks like and the caption describes what she was saying....But you want the image culled.....but you also don't want your culling described as censorship.

[Ziggurat]

well, you rationalise your desire for censorship with the following...

"Filtering is not the same thing as censoring"

well of course its not zig, its only censorship if you don't agree with the supression of an image..If its your Idea to have the image supressed then of course you don't want it called censorship..

Do you or do you not agree with the following statement:
Journalists always filter their own work.

Once we see how well you can cope with the thought processes involved with evaluating that statement, we can proceed to the next logical step, but I don't want to rush you. You might sprain a nerve.


and here you are at it again...
"Since this one obviously doesn't represent what it claims to represent, it should have been culled."


As far as I can see the Image claims to represent an image of what an old lady looks like and the caption describes what she was saying....But you want the image culled.....but you also don't want your culling described as censorship.

As far as you can see? I explicitly pointed out why the caption is more than that in my above post. The caption describes the cartridges as actually being bullets, not merely her claiming that they are bullets. No actual response to the substance of that, of course, just the repetition of an already disproven claim. You're one of the most intellectually dishonest posters on this whole board.

[The Fool]

but I don't want to rush you. You might sprain a nerve.



Lol....OK you prefer to behave like a rule 12 , you had your chance. I prefer to discuss issues with adults.

[Ziggurat]

Lol....OK you prefer to behave like a childish wanker, you had your chance. I prefer to discuss issues with adults.

You never discussed anything. You completely ignored every factual point, or pretended we said something other than what we actually said. That's not having a discussion at all. You got insults from me because you earned them through constant dishonesty.

[The Fool]

You never discussed anything. You completely ignored every factual point

Factual point? The content of the image is a fact, the content of the caption is a fact. I have never dispuited either of those. What YOU wish to do is elevate your opinions on what they infer to "fact".....your opinions on what common usage words mean and other trivial semantics... Yes zig...those things in her hand could not have been fired at her house....hadn't you noticed that this had never been disputed? Your opinions are not facts zig and it makes no difference if you use childish insults on anyone who challenges your opinions....good luck with that.

[Miss Anthrope]

Remember rule 12...attack the argument not the arguer. Please stop the personal bickering.

[gtc]

Fool,

If you were the editor and you recieved that photo would you publish and what caption would you place on it?

[The Fool]

Fool,

If you were the editor and you recieved that photo would you publish and what caption would you place on it?
I would publish and I would leave the caption as is.....I personally don't get as worked up as some over semantic arguments about the common usage of the words "bullet" and whatever word various people proclaim is more correct.

If the Iraqi woman in the picture was pointing at personel carriers with no large callibre cannon and the caption said An elderly Iraqi woman points at two tanks which she says blew up her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City." I wouldn't pull the pic or fiddle with the caption simply because the old lady cannot tell a carrier from a tank either.

Unless, of course, I wanted to cast some doubt on the event....if it happened or not....then It would be full steam ahead picking at all the possible flaws in the pic/caption or combination of both. Consider those Malkin pics I posted...not many of the blogland picture hobbyists would be interested In those humerous examples.

Look, an old lady holding up those rounds is damn funny in combination with the caption....but so are the malkin pics of "poor" iraqis with SUV's and satelite dishes...pictures claiming Iraqis are lining up to meet US troops when the american veihicle has a bloody big sign with "Danger stay back" on it...a reeeely cheesy Photoshop enhanced child flagwaving....Picture of the only Iraqi quoted in the whole article who said....guess what?....exactly what malkins standard line is. ".“No, no, you can’t leave.”..thats handy. Do we see these sort of pics given the once over? The pictures I posted a link to are not some collection of Malkin "doubtfulls" just the first right wing blog article I came across containing pics...

so lets all have a big laugh at the picture and give a damn about the situation she is in rather than something that appears to be the other way around.

I make no apology for picking apart this sort of stuff when its reposted here by our resident right wing blog members...don't their blogs provide them with enough of this sort of fodder?

[Ranb]

.....I personally don't get as worked up as some over semantic arguments about the common usage of the words "bullet" and whatever word various people proclaim is more correct......

I get "worked up" in certain cases. Such as when a gun control advocate says that some rifles should be banned because they shoot bullets nearly 6 inches long.

Well, 6 inches makes for a damn big bullet. But wait, the bullet in question is actually only about 2.5 inches long. Ok they say; the cartridge is nearly 6 inches long. But no, the standard cartridge length of the surplus ammo they are crying over is actually less than 5.5 inches.

They are stupid or lying, neither of which is a good position.

Ranb

[The Fool]

I get "worked up" in certain cases. Such as when a gun control advocate says that some rifles should be banned because they shoot bullets nearly 6 inches long.

Well, 6 inches makes for a damn big bullet. But wait, the bullet in question is actually only about 2.5 inches long. Ok they say; the cartridge is nearly 6 inches long. But no, the standard cartridge length of the surplus ammo they are crying over is actually less than 5.5 inches.

They are stupid or lying, neither of which is a good position.

Ranb
do you think the Iraqi woman is either stupid or lying?

[Big Les]

Why are you placing the Iraqi woman front and centre here? It's the journalist who has screwed up, who ought to know better, not an old lady who shouldn't be expected to know the difference.

Yes, it's minor error and instance of misrepresentation in the scheme of things, and in my view probably just a journalistic error. But you're the one challenging the assertion that it's misrepresentation because of your apparent dislike of right-wingers. Well, I'm no right winger, and I'm telling you that it's inaccurate, and in context it's misrepresentative, regardless of whether it's deliberate or not. Old lady gets shot at = story. Picture of old lady with ammunition = better story. The fact that the object she's holding clearly has no relationship to the incident in question is the misrepresentation here, and it's either got through because the journalist and editor didn't know the difference, or because they didn't care. Either way it's misrepresentative of the incident.

Scepticism of specific claims and implications in the media is important - the ends don't justify the means. If a particular flood or storm is attributed without evidence to AGW, detractors will be able to use to try to discredit the bigger picture. That's a fallacy in itself of course, but purely from a PR point of view it makes no sense to show something that purports to be evidence for something else, but demonstrably isn't.

[Ranb]

do you think the Iraqi woman is either stupid or lying?


No, my last post was not directed at the woman in the photo.

I suspect that her picture was taken while she held the cartridges and someone used it in connection with a story. Whether the photo and the story are actually related I really do not know. I really do not care either. My only beef with the story was the inaccurate caption.

Ranb

[The Fool]

Why are you placing the Iraqi woman front and centre here?

Because she is the subject of the picture...it is a picture that brings to the reader information about what she says happened to her and her reaction to it.




It's the journalist who has screwed up, who ought to know better, not an old lady who shouldn't be expected to know the difference.

I guess this depends on how much you expect photojournalists to investigate the details of thier pictures and the claims of those that appear in them. My counterpoint example is the Malkin pics of "poor" Iraqis. Should the journalist be expected to investigate thier financial circumstances?



Yes, it's minor error and instance of misrepresentation in the scheme of things, and in my view probably just a journalistic error. But you're the one challenging the assertion that it's misrepresentation because of your apparent dislike of right-wingers.

I agree that its a minor error and am challenging people who describe it as major...as for right wingers? most people who get into this picture pecking hobby seem to also proclaim right wing politics. Thats thier business, I don't really care.




Well, I'm no right winger, and I'm telling you that it's inaccurate, and in context it's misrepresentative, regardless of whether it's deliberate or not. Old lady gets shot at = story. Picture of old lady with ammunition = better story. The fact that the object she's holding clearly has no relationship to the incident in question is the misrepresentation here, and it's either got through because the journalist and editor didn't know the difference, or because they didn't care. Either way it's misrepresentative of the incident.

But the object she is holding does indeed have a relationship to the incident in question. If she had picked up a projectile instead of a cartridge or the other way round it would not have changed the story...unless the fact that she is waving a cartridge is used to infer doubt about what she says happened to her. This is the goal of most of this blog led picture scrutiny...it has a goal, that goal is to create doubt about the event....did it really happen as she claims if she is waving a cartridge and not a projectile?



Scepticism of specific claims and implications in the media is important - the ends don't justify the means. If a particular flood or storm is attributed without evidence to AGW, detractors will be able to use to try to discredit the bigger picture. That's a fallacy in itself of course, but purely from a PR point of view it makes no sense to show something that purports to be evidence for something else, but demonstrably isn't.

yes...the old lady picking up the wrong thing has given some people some oportunities.


Look at it the other way around - when the right wing press publish a photo of weapons with western markings captioned to imply that it's evidence of the Iranians supplying the insurgency with weapons, we are right to be sceptical. They might be, but the photo isn't evidence of it.

Why should this be any different?
because this pic is not about who supplied the ammunition used in the raid. The claim is the womans.....Her claim is her house was shot up. Once again, is what she picks up and waves at the camera when she is ranting anything other than an opportunity for a distraction from the issue?

[Ziggurat]

Factual point? The content of the image is a fact, the content of the caption is a fact.

Not it isn't. She isn't holding bullets, she is holding cartridges. That makes the caption false, whether intentionally or accidentally.

I have never dispuited either of those.

Of course not. You're absolutely determined not to conceed an obvious factual error. Why is that?

Yes zig...those things in her hand could not have been fired at her house....hadn't you noticed that this had never been disputed?

Indeed. But by pretending that those "things" can accurately be called bullets, you are excusing incompetence (at best) on the part of the AFP. And every argument you have made about the AFP's duty indicates that the competence with which they perform their job is of no importance at all.

Furthermore, your attempt to reframe "filtering" (an activity that every writer of any sort does automatically) as censorship were dishonest in the extreme, and completely nonsensical as well. Don't think I haven't noticed that as well. I have, and so probably has anyone reading this thread.

[Mycroft]

do you think the Iraqi woman is either stupid or lying?

Oh Please! :oldroll:

What we know for certain is that the ammunition the woman holds was not fired at her house. Knowing that doesn't put anyone under any obligation to explain the true circumstances behind that photo. Such a person couldn't possibly know without more evidence, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Honestly....some of you guys make me laugh and some make me sad. Here is a pic showing EXACTLY what a person was doing and reporting EXACTLY what she said......your response is to call for supression and censorship. Saddam would have been proud.

What a load!

Nobody is claiming the press should be censored from showing the photo and caption. We are only commenting that it is unprofessional.

[The Fool]

Not it isn't. She isn't holding bullets, she is holding cartridges. That makes the caption false, whether intentionally or accidentally.
earlier in this thread I said "Yes zig...those things in her hand could not have been fired at her house....hadn't you noticed that this had never been disputed?" Obviously you have not noticed how many times this has been said. I said the caption is a "fact" ....this probably confused you as I was saying that it exists for all to see, what it contains is not a matter of opinion but a self evident fact....and not in dispute, never has been...

What is a matter of opinion is what the error means...you seem to think it is something nearing the horror of the collision of planets.



Of course not. You're absolutely determined not to conceed an obvious factual error. Why is that?
sigh ....you are absolutely correct....I am absolutely determined not to conceed an obvious factual error except for all the times I conceed it. Sheesh, read the thread already.



Indeed. But by pretending that those "things" can accurately be called bullets, you are excusing incompetence (at best) on the part of the AFP. And every argument you have made about the AFP's duty indicates that the competence with which they perform their job is of no importance at all.

Thats where we disagree...your outrage...squeals of incompetence and calls for the images to be culled...very dramatic and all. I would describe it as highly selective outrage.



Furthermore, your attempt to reframe "filtering" (an activity that every writer of any sort does automatically) as censorship were dishonest in the extreme, and completely nonsensical as well. Don't think I haven't noticed that as well. I have, and so probably has anyone reading this thread.
I'm sure all readers of this thread will be relieved that calling for something to be culled from the news is not the same thing as censorship. and calling it censorship is "dishonest". While we are on the topic of dishonesty......we are talking about YOUR calls for this image to be culled, you seem to overlook this. Are calls for censorship different. if you say that you are calling for someone else to do it?

[The Fool]

Nobody is claiming the press should be censored from showing the photo and caption. We are only commenting that it is unprofessional.
Nobody? you have not said in this thread the picture should have been culled? You are not talking about what you think should be censored....just what you think should be "culled".

[Ziggurat]

earlier in this thread I said "Yes zig...those things in her hand could not have been fired at her house....hadn't you noticed that this had never been disputed?" Obviously you have not noticed how many times this has been said.

I most certainly have. But I have also noticed you sidestep the issue completely and deliberately every single time. Those are not simply "things" that she is holding. Nor are the bullets. They are cartriges. If she was holding a cat, and the caption said she was holding a dog, would you not have a problem with it? Or would you try to argue that since she said she was holding a dog, the reporter should report that she was holding a dog, even though it was clearly a cat?

I said the caption is a "fact" ....this probably confused you as I was saying that it exists for all to see, what it contains is not a matter of opinion but a self evident fact....and not in dispute, never has been...

Once again: it is a self-evident fact that she is not holding bullets, but cartridges.

[Mycroft]

Nobody? you have not said in this thread the picture should have been culled? You are not talking about what you think should be censored....just what you think should be "culled".

Are these distinctions too subtle for you?

A professional reporter or photographer comes across many stories and images and must use his discretion to choose which ones are presented for publication. It's only common sense that the ones that are obviously false, misleading or of dubious accuracy shouldn't make the cut.

What could there possibly be in that to disagree with? Do you really claim that's the same as censorship?

[The Fool]

I most certainly have. But I have also noticed you sidestep the issue completely and deliberately every single time. Those are not simply "things" that she is holding. Nor are the bullets. They are cartriges. If she was holding a cat, and the caption said she was holding a dog, would you not have a problem with it? Or would you try to argue that since she said she was holding a dog, the reporter should report that she was holding a dog, even though it was clearly a cat?



Once again: it is a self-evident fact that she is not holding bullets, but cartridges.
you are 100% correct she is holding cartridges....Now can we drop this fluff about me supposedly sidestepping something so plainly obvious. Now getting back to the less trivial. What does it matter unless you want to use it to cast doubt on her story...is that the case? Or is this whole tempest in a teapot about the semantic cartridge/bullet world crisis?

[The Fool]

Are these distinctions too subtle for you?

A professional reporter or photographer comes across many stories and images and must use his discretion to choose which ones are presented for publication. It's only common sense that the ones that are obviously false, misleading or of dubious accuracy shouldn't make the cut.

What could there possibly be in that to disagree with? Do you really claim that's the same as censorship?
So if I was of the opinion that some of your posts here on jref were obviously false, misleading or of dubious accuracy and said that they should be "culled" this would not (in your world) be calling for censorship? I just be calling for you you be more carefull with your quality control?

[Ziggurat]

you are 100% correct she is holding cartridges....Now can we drop this fluff about me supposedly sidestepping something so plainly obvious. Now getting back to the less trivial. What does it matter unless you want to use it to cast doubt on her story...is that the case? Or is this whole tempest in a teapot about the semantic cartridge/bullet world crisis?

The semantics are not trivial. They go to the heart of what her story is. Because they are cartridges and not bullets, we know her story is false to some (possibly very large, but certainly not small) degree, whether out of ignorance or malice. Does that cast doubt on her story? Of course it does: her story is false, we know it's false, you've conceeded it's false. Readers deserve to know that, and the AFP has a responsibility, if they want to be considered responsible journalists, to let the reader know important facts like that when they affect the story so critically.

[The Fool]

The semantics are not trivial. They go to the heart of what her story is. Because they are cartridges and not bullets, we know her story is false to some (possibly very large, but certainly not small) degree, whether out of ignorance or malice. Does that cast doubt on her story? Of course it does: her story is false, we know it's false, you've conceeded it's false. Readers deserve to know that, and the AFP has a responsibility, if they want to be considered responsible journalists, to let the reader know important facts like that when they affect the story so critically.
Its always more pleasant when the Agendas are out in the open isn't it.

Is the story that her house was shot up and it pisses her off or is the story that she is showing off the exact projectiles that hit her house? I go for the former.....which makes the latter appear to be clutching at straws for a distraction and a chance to spread uncertainty and doubt about if her house was ever shot up in the first place...Thats certainly the line of frenzy all the bloggers seem to be charging down...

[Ziggurat]

Is the story that her house was shot up and it pisses her off or is the story that she is showing off the exact projectiles that hit her house?

On what basis are we to conclude her house was actually shot up? If she really found those cartridges and thought they were bullets that hit her house, then isn't it entirely possible her house wasn't shot up, but she only thought it was? We have no other evidence, because the photographer collected none. Really, The Fool, even you should be able to recognize the problem. If her house was really shot, why didn't the photographer take pictures which would show that? And I don't say that merely to question whether or not it happened. Even assuming it did happen, it's incompetence to pick a photo which provides no evidence for the events rather than one which does. But again, you demonstrate no interest in competence.

I go for the former.....

Of course you do. Fake but accurate.

[The Fool]

On what basis are we to conclude her house was actually shot up? If she really found those cartridges and thought they were bullets that hit her house, then isn't it entirely possible her house wasn't shot up, but she only thought it was? We have no other evidence, because the photographer collected none. Really, The Fool, even you should be able to recognize the problem. If her house was really shot, why didn't the photographer take pictures which would show that? And I don't say that merely to question whether or not it happened. Even assuming it did happen, it's incompetence to pick a photo which provides no evidence for the events rather than one which does. But again, you demonstrate no interest in competence.



Of course you do. Fake but accurate.
Lol...do you think maybe she is Al Qaeda? Part of a conspiracy to dupe the foreign press into thinking old ladies houses get shot up?

son...she is from Baghdad, chances are her house has been shot up :)

[Ziggurat]

Lol...do you think maybe she is Al Qaeda? Part of a conspiracy to dupe the foreign press into thinking old ladies houses get shot up?

Nothing of the sort. That's a pathetic strawman, even for you. If we assume (or conclude) that this is not fake, we're STILL left with the question of why the hell the journalist shot this photo rather than one which actually showed evidence of her house actually having been shot. Is it because there's no evidence other than the cartridges? If so, then this is a complete non-story ("woman gets confused, thinks her house was shot"). If not, then that other evidence, and not the unspent cartridges, is what should have been photographed and published. In no case was the choice of this photo, rather than something else, a good one on the part of the AFP, and in no case is the caption which accompanies the photo appropriate, given its known factual falsity.

son...she is from Baghdad, chances are her house has been shot up :)

And your evidence for that is... what? The AFP photo of her holding unspent cartridges? Or just your assumptions about what life must be like there? Before you call me "son", you might want to consider actually finding some wisdom, and not yet more foolishness, to impart.

[The Fool]

Nothing of the sort. That's a pathetic strawman, even for you.


nope...its not a strawman its a question.....if you don't accept her story on the face of it that her house had been shot up I was after what other possibilities you had in mind. Possibly she is an enemy agent making stuff up and feeding it to the press?.....I note you postulate the possibility she is confused and just "thought" her house had been shot up....Thats a peach....is there any limit to the bizzare alternatives?

[Mycroft]

So if I was of the opinion that some of your posts here on jref were obviously false, misleading or of dubious accuracy and said that they should be "culled" this would not (in your world) be calling for censorship?

That these bullets were never fires is not just anyone's opinion, it's objective fact.


I just be calling for you you be more carefull with your quality control?

Your exact example happens all the time. It's common to see people asking other people to be more careful before making claims, or to provide evidence to back up claims. That's hardly censorship.

Lol...do you think maybe she is Al Qaeda? Part of a conspiracy to dupe the foreign press into thinking old ladies houses get shot up?

There are many possible explanations, many that don't involve anything sinister in the motives of this woman, but putting forth any one theory without corroborating evidence would only be speculation. The only important issue here is that the photo and caption as printed are objectively false, and should not have been printed. We don't need to know what the real story is to know that much is true.

son...she is from Baghdad, chances are her house has been shot up :)

How do you figure? It's plausible that her house may have been shot up, but that's far from saying it was.

[Mycroft]

nope...its not a strawman its a question.....if you don't accept her story on the face of it that her house had been shot up I was after what other possibilities you had in mind. Possibly she is an enemy agent making stuff up and feeding it to the press?.....I note you postulate the possibility she is confused and just "thought" her house had been shot up....Thats a peach....is there any limit to the bizzare alternatives?

And for the third time...

What we *know* is that the claim is false. That doesn't place any burden on anyone to fully explain all the unknowns. There doesn't need to be an alternative theory in order to debunk the story we have.

[The Fool]

And for the third time...

What we *know* is that the claim is false. That doesn't place any burden on anyone to fully explain all the unknowns. There doesn't need to be an alternative theory in order to debunk the story we have.

Doesn't need to be an alternative theory?
Then why do you parrot the alternate theory of right wing blogs on this site..

"The claim is this picture is purposeful propaganda fed to an uncritical media sympathetic to an anti-war stance"

But of course you are not claiming that yourself are you....just reposting it here without challenge.

[Big Les]

Perhaps because that's one explanation for the photo being printed in this way, and because right-wingers will naturally assume an agenda on the part of the liberal media. That's quite possible, but of course there is no evidence for that. If an agenda is in place, it's probably to show emphasise that civilians in Iraq are still being hurt and killed by all sides. Because that's an indisputable fact, the media bods in question may have felt justified in printing what amounts to a allusion to this situation that may or may not have a basis in fact as an incident in its own right. Regardless, I personally tend to assume incompetence ahead of any deliberate attempt to mislead, every time.

The important point here is that even if Mycroft is trying to paint this as liberal propaganda and is wrong in that, he's still correct in pointing out that the photo/caption is inaccurate, misleading, and should not have been printed in this way. I think you're letting your dislike of the conservative take on things colour your own objective assessment of what constitutes misrepresentation and shoddy journalism. This argument is just a proxy for your frustration at the cynicism and head-in-the-sand approach of the right-wing blogs. As a centrist/liberal I share that frustration, but we must never lose sight of the objective truth, no matter how insignificant.

[Ziggurat]

nope...its not a strawman its a question.....if you don't accept her story on the face of it that her house had been shot up I was after what other possibilities you had in mind. Possibly she is an enemy agent making stuff up and feeding it to the press?.....

Maybe. Or maybe she's just some random woman a photographer handed cartridges to in order to stage a dramatic photo for an event that never occurred. Of the possibilities involving deliberate misconduct, I consider it more likely that the photographer is the one to blame - possibly out of sympathy towards our enemies, or possibly just to sell more photos. But deliberate misconduct isn't the only possible explanation, either. Incompetence (and there are lots of ways for that to play out) cannot be discounted. The one thing we know we can rule out is competent, responsible and accurate reporting. Whatever the hell happened to that woman and her house, the reporting on it was pathetic. Construct any scenario you want to regarding what happened, and it wasn't reported well.

is there any limit to the bizzare alternatives?

There are a good number of possibilities which aren't bizzare at all. But you don't want to consider any of them. In fact, you're acting like it's wrong to even consider any possibility which doesn't absolve the AFP completely.

[The Fool]

The important point here is that even if Mycroft is trying to paint this as liberal propaganda and is wrong in that, he's still correct in pointing out that the photo/caption is.......
OK Les, if your opinion is still that the important point here is the caption on this pic is wrong then all I can say is I agree with you that it was wrong and disagree with you that its the important point.

Anyway..this thread has probably run its course because the international media conspiracy theorists have moved on to another thread (lebanon kills hundreds....)

Care to join me and identify what is the actual important point in that thread besides the theories of propaganda conspiracies from our resident conspiracy theorists?

[Big Les]

To paraphrase South Park, I'm not touching that one with a 40ft pole... ;)

[Mycroft]

Doesn't need to be an alternative theory?
Then why do you parrot the alternate theory of right wing blogs on this site..

Because that's what's being said, and it's a starting point for discussion. Do you think I should have "censored" that? Fine...

Incidentally, notice how once again you've transitioned from talking about the issue to talking about me. Apparently you're relieved of the duty of explaining why this isn't terrible journalism if you make an ad hominem attack against me by saying I'm bad for telling where I got the photo and explaining the context of the discussion. :oldroll:

"The claim is this picture is purposeful propaganda fed to an uncritical media sympathetic to an anti-war stance"

But of course you are not claiming that yourself are you....just reposting it here without challenge.

Looks like you got it all figured out, pall. Next maybe you can help us out on the Kennedy assassination? :woowoo