IotD is not a political blog at all, and that's by design. On the rest of the Cellar, I personally enjoy talking politics all the time. But on IotD, when it comes to politics, what's mind-boggling to me might not be mind-boggling to you and vice-versa. And the mideast, well that's like the abortion of talking politics; everyone harshly, completely on one side or the other, bringing maximum outrage to the topic. Plenty mind-boggling about it, but the arguments weigh down the enjoyable side of mind-boggling very quickly.
So why this political entry about the mideast? I dunno, I guess I think this photo is mind-boggling no matter which side you're on. Let's see what you think.
The above photo is from the Reuters news service, and I found it in Yahoo! Most Popular today at 10:30 am.
As of this writing, it's still there. The caption reads:
Quote:
|
Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj
|
Problem is, it's Photoshopped. The repeating sections of smoke clouds are unmistakeable "clone tool" use.
The blogosphere caught this really fast -- because it's really bad work. The photo was then cancelled by Reuters:
This might be the original:
There are various non-political aspects of this which make it mind-boggling, and I think you can enjoy it no matter whether you love or hate Israel, no matter whether you love or hate Hezbollah, no matter whether your love or hate Lebanon.
Although perhaps "enjoy" is not the right word.
It is a sign of the times. But does it mean that our information today is LESS accurate, or is it MORE accurate? The tools make it easier to fake information... while at the same time, giving the skeptical audience a way to share notes and disseminate corrections.
One other note...
I've heard news service photographers say that when Hezbollah specifically sets up a shot, sometimes it's obvious that the photographers are being "fed" -- and some photographers refuse to shoot such situations. What do you take from the above shot?
What do you take, when you find out it was taken by Adnan Hajj, the same Reuters photographer reponsible for the Photoshop?
I, for one, don't know.