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/even...c22bcf01aa597b


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]

Originally Posted by 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/even...c22bcf01aa597b


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:

Quote:

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/20...let-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]

Originally Posted by 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/20...let-story.html

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

It sure looks like the same woman.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by 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".

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

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

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/b...-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]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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.

Originally Posted by The Fool

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?

Originally Posted by The Fool

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?

[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...ms-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]

Originally Posted by Big Les

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by The Fool

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.

Originally Posted by The Fool

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

...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]

Originally Posted by Big Les

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]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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]

Originally Posted by The Fool

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]

Originally Posted by Ranb

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/b...-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

A .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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Ranb

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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