This statement is not meant to be a political troll, just an observation:

Is it just me, or did no one give two shiats about Israel in this recent war?

 

Not a surprise at all.

 

i'm a semi skilled photo manipulator and i could tell that was fake way before i even started anaylazing it

 

well, you don't even need photoshop to tell a lie with a picture. And that latest Reuters fiasco is just stupid. I would say in some cases much of the blame needs to lie on the stringer photogs hired by these agencies to provide photos. These are the people perpetrating the fraud, with the assistance of the news agencies. The news agencies DO need to exercise common sense and judgement, however. When photo editing is so obvious, blaming the photographer is just ridiculous.

In the defense of some of the photos: If the image of the mannekin in front of a bombed out window was put forth as simple documentary, then it is fraud. If, however, it was sold as a statement on the events and atmosphere, it is a fine photograph. In other words, it it was represented as art, no foul. If represented as "news," then there is a problem. Same with the Disney characters in the shots of bombed out buildings.

I don't know that there is room for artistic statement of that sort in news photography, but every news photog likely tries to get a new perspective, tell a story in a unique way, with every image. Imagine that you are at the scene of a bombing, and there is a crowd of onlookers on one side, and nothing but a field on the other. Do you take the picture looking out over the empty field or towards the small crowd? How does that decision affect the photograph, and how does it add or change the impact of the associated story on the front page? What kinds of information should you as the photographer take into account before taking the picture? Do your own opinions on the events have a significant impact on the final image? And if so, should the reader make a guess based on the name of the shooter to decide what exactly is being shown, and how the image might or might not give an accurate impression fo the actual events? Or should the reader judge a photo in a news publication on its own, without attempting to see it as a direct illustration of the story?

It is entirely possible that the editor chose one photo out of a slew of them, and the caption was written by a copy writer or page designer, who got it all terribly wrong. The editor bears responsibility for the publication, so that is no free pass, but it is important to realize that it doesn't take a sinister conspiracy to distort the truth. It is the responsibility of the reader to exercise their judgement when reading anything, but especially "the news." As they say, one picture is worth a thousand words, so it might be worth thinking about those thousand words as a separate topic rather than simple illustration. It's not like the writer tells the photographer what to photograph.

 

But you pay attention to the Daly report?

What a screwed up view you must have of the world.

 

at least the Daily Show is up front about being fake news

Both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report also have excellent guests.