The Random Yak

Or perhaps I should say “dead lady.” Dead Grey Lady, to be more specific.

Misery loves company, and it appears Reuters now has some – in the form of the New York Times. (Tip of the horns, Michelle Malkin) The issue?The “dead guy” in a photo essay published by the NYT wasn’t, well, quite as dead as the photo may have suggested. In fact, it turns out he’shumiliatingly alive.

But the story doesn’t really end there. Apparently unwilling to admit its caption (which claimed the man was killed in an Israeli attack) was completely false, the Times correction (linked above) states that the man in fact “had fallen and was hurt.” (Please ignore the crying mourner holding his hand.And the fact that a beam lies across the “hurt” man’s chest in a manner which makes no sense if we’re talking about a slip and fall.)

According to the Times it was all a nasty typographical error. Sounds logical to me. I mean, look at the words: “Dead.” “Hurt.” It’s an easy mistake. Don’t let the fact that they share no letters fool you.

The Timescalls the caption “imprecise” and essentially says “we ran the wrong caption.”

Actually, I think that’s imprecise too.The Timesactually ran the wrong risk. The risk that someone out there might not accept the image – or the accompanying propaganda editorializing falsehood caption at face value. They gambled. They bluffed. And, as happens when a card shark goes up against a card counter – they lost.

There was a Time(s)whenalleged journalistscould get away with a little thing like photoshopping an image or faking the dead guy for political and journalistic effect. That Time(s) is past.

Other discussion of the DeadMan PhotojournalismWalking:

• Michelle Malkin has other stories about “fauxtography”here and here
• The photos, along with good images of the “dead guy” helping sort through rubble earlier in the day, can be found at Stuck on Stupid
• Third World County is calling a spade a spade – and pointing out the careful staging of the photo – staging which seems to confirm the man wasn’t even injured, but was playing possum for an all-too-willing-and-aware cameraman.
• Free Republic now has a “fauxtography list” to keep track of altered and illegitimate images published in the MSM.
• “Reuterization” – coined and explained by The Paragraph Farmer. That’s gonna leave a mark (at least, it will as soon as I get done photoshopping it).
• Patterico points out that the Los Angeles Times has no story on the Reuters photoshop scandal. (Think they’ll cover the NYT?) He also has the “Amazing Questionable Photo Roundup” in case you haven’t found enough links yet.
• Gateway Pundit also has the story, the images and a solid roundup – with updates as the story … develops.
• Noblesse Obligediscusses the difference betweennews and framing for effect in”Fear and Loathing in the Media”
• The Texas Rainmaker also has a discussion of recent photographic *cough* integrity.
• Perhaps the best roundup of faked, doctored and otherwise overlysmarmy photography coming out of the Middle East canbe found at Euphoric Reality.If you want click one linkand get caught up on the entire situation, this is your best bet.
• And finally (for now) my own post: Photoshop 1, Reuters Editors 0, which includes my take on altered photographs generally and applies equally well to this latest debacle as it did to the original Reuterization of war photos by Adnan Hajj.
• Talking this over at your place? Track it back and I’ll link you here (provided, as always,the language is SFW).