Did Reuters crop Gaza flotilla photos to hide activists’ weapons?
In our earlier post ‘Did Reuters crop Gaza flotilla photos to hide activists’ weapons?’ (click to view photos), the injured men in the balaclava who have been stabbed and held down are the Israeli commandos.
It’s only to be expected that Malaysian readers would mistake the bleeding and captured men (Israeli soldiers) for Palestinians because local MSM only tells one side of the story. Therefore Malaysian have been well conditioned to always view the Palestinians as victims in any armed skirmish.
The men holding the knives are the pro-Palestinian activists and not the Israelis (something Malaysians lack the capacity to imagine).
Like the repercussions on the ‘Jews should go home to Germany’ comment (see our posting yesterday), it is again pressure from an alert blogosphere that is holding mainstream media to account.
Above is a photo of the Gaza flotilla episode as released by Associated Press (AP). Note the hand holding the knife in the bottom right corner.
AP captions it: “In this Monday, May 31, 2010, photo taken by an unidentified person aboard the ship Mavi Marmara, an Israeli soldier is surrounded by people aboard the Turkish-flagged vessel. The photo was released by the Turkish activist group IHH, which is outlawed in Israel. According to IHH, the Israeli soldiers were hurt while storming the ship in confrontations with activists aboard, and were later returned to other Israeli troops who boarded the ship. Israel’s military said the series of images “shows that our boarding party in fact did face deadly violence from the hardcore Islamist activists on the boat from the fundamentalist IHH movement.” (AP Photo/IHH)
Below is the cropped photo by Reuters as recorded in some websites and blogs. The knife is missing — cropped away.
Also conspicuously missing is the set of pix now taken-down from the Reuters site with the story headlined ‘Photos from Turkish aid ship show blood and chaos’.
Asterisks mark these two tags – “* Pictures provided by Turkish aid group”, “* Wounded soldiers shown; no direct depiction of violence”. However, the said series of photos cannot currently be viewed on the Reuters page. Fishy, eh?
While AP had noted that IHH is outlawed in Israel, Reuters which calls IHH an “aid group” fails to mention this caveat of IHH’s possible terrorist links.
On the Reuters page there is a single comment left by a reader ‘NZED’ which says: “Where are the photos please?”
Reuters has put a stop to further comments with a notice: “This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.”
Even more fishy!! NZED’s comment was timed Jun 07, 2010 2:29am EDT, whereas the Reuters story was filed only just a little earlier on Jun 06, 2010 at 3:46pm EDT.
Does Reuter’s policy of closing discussion after “a limited period” mean less than 24 hours, or is the news wire agency afraid of backlash? As NZED rightly asked, why are the pictures no longer on the page when the whole story is premised on the images provided by the activists themselves?
The second missing knife
See pix below from IHH website and note the knife in the top of the frame.
Now compare with the pix below attributed to Reuters — carried in Daylife — which is minus the knife and captioned: “Pro-Palestinian activists hold down an Israeli commando on the Gaza-bound Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in the international waters of Mediterranean sea early May 31, 2010.”
Note that in the Reuters pix, the pool of blood around the hand of the other Israeli commando (at the top of the frame) is also missing!
These are merely among two of the anomalies about MSM coverage brought up through global media monitoring by websites and blogs; Reuters may find it hard to explain away their allegations of its unprofessional conduct in treating photographs.
Should the irresponsible — if not sinister — cropping be indeed proved, the Reuters photo editor should jolly well be sacked! How could he take away the context of the knives … and mind you, the agency’s pix are distributed to publications worldwide.
If you think the coverage of international MSM is dodgy, what more in Malaysia.