Accompanying earlier posts here and here, another example of some Reuters truthmaking has been exposed by the blogosphere – and guess which side of the conflict is being targeted by Reuters’ dodgy Adobe warriors? The shot and caption in question can be found here. The caption reads
An Israeli F-16 warplane fires missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, August 2, 2006.
Looks plausible enough to an untrained eye such as my own, however Reuters again underestimates the superior intellectual firepower ranged against it in the Blogosphere, which has exposed the “missiles” as the guided-missile countermeasure known as chaff. The fact that two of the three rounds visible are copies of the single chaff release adds to the visual fiction. The link posted above debunking the Reuters image has a lot more detail.
We are starting to see the full extent of entrenched dishonesty in the Reuters newsroom, and it is astonishing that the people working for this once-venerable institution think they can get away with such crude deception. Did they think people with far, far greater expertise than these hacks would not notice? Reuters needs to get its house in order expeditiously, otherwise its supersession is assured.
(Via LGF)
Actually, I think they’re flares, which serve as a countermeasure against heatseeking missiles. Chaff would be used against radarguided missiles. Then again, I am not an expert either.
It does not take superior intellect to see they are not missiles. Note that they are *behind* the airplane. Missles have a tendency to go ahead of the airplane… it would take a drooling retard to call those objects missiles.
I have noticed the flare dropping numerous times and wondered what it was about. Do the Hizbollah actually have IR guided ground to air missiles? If so, I have not heard this reported anywhere. I can’t think of any other good use. Too high for target marking. Not at night so not for illumination for ground troops.
I would be very interested to know what is *actually* happening.
Perhaps. Point remains the same – the plane was defending itself and not shooting nasty babykilling missiles at defenceless civilians, as the feverish ideologues at Reuters might have us believe.
Yeah, I know they probably have the little shoulder launched jobs, but… at an F16? Would not seem much of a threat unless it was low and slow.
It could be dropping bombs as well as deploying flares, but clearly those are not missiles… so not a spiteful error but rather inept and careless.
The Lebanese army probably do, so it would only seem prudent to assume the worst.
I have seen film of Mig21 & 23’s dropping flares at that height over Afghanistan in the late 1980’s after the Muj were given Stingers. Likewise there is footage of Su-25’s dropping flares like this over Chechnya. Websites quote a Stinger as being able to hit targets up to 11000 feet but I don’t know how true that is.
As an armchair warrior I’m amazed someone can mistake flares for air to ground missiles, but hey. I struggle to believe an experienced war zone photographer would not no the difference, but perhaps a civilian got a lucky shot and decided to flog it to Reuters.
Anyway I have to say that all this recent faff has made me go and visit the Reuter’s website. They really do have some great photographs available. It makes me wonder why people have been publishing the boring ones. Oh well.
Perry – I would say it is a spiteful error. No one is suggesting that the jet went up there to deploy a countermeasure and then return to base – I’m sure it struck a target or was on its way to do so. It was not engaging in such behaviour at the time, but that’s not the war Reuters wants to report on, so they alter the image accordingly. The mislabelling and picture doctoring mentioned above is further evidence of a consistent narrative Reuters has been peddling throughout this imbroglio that unfairly paints Israelis as aggressors. That is spiteful – not to mention shameful, considering Reuters postures itself as a quality news provider.
Dale – it is quite obvious; just like those plainly doctored plumes of smoke rising over Beirut.
I usually (but by no means always) assume that idiotic technical mistakes are due to a complete ignorance of military matters on behalf of most so called ‘war correspondents’ (there are some notable exceptions of course).
Every tracked armoured vehicle with a turret, be it an armour personnel carrier, self-propelled artillery or anti-aircraft gun, is described on the news as a ‘tank’. All, and I do mean ALL fighting is described as ‘heavy’ or ‘intense’ fighting. All infantry armed with typical infantry weapons are always described as ‘heavily armed’ (which appears to mean any soldier equipped with more than a sharpened Frisbee )… the list goes on. There was a time when most military correspondents could tell the difference between a mauser and a javelin. Those days are long past.
Well well! all this has just turned up on Channel 4 news (with typical lefty slant natch!)
But at least they acknowledge that that Little Green Footballs et al was right!
Well done everybody!!
Presumably flares are cheap so dropping them whould be standard operating procedure unless you knew for sure your enemy had no IR missiles.
Actually, it is one flare copied and pasted. Chaff would be strips of metal used to confuse seeking system by providing hundred of false positives to the seeking algorithm f the missile.
What we have here is a typical media clusterfuck. Reporters, ignorant of the tools used in the situation they are in mis-report WHAT it is they are seeing (missiles). A photographer trying to heighten the drama in their pictures tweak the picture to make it look more dramatic. Partisan toadies see an error but are just as ignorant as the people doing the initial reporting, and so mis-represent the error. (Chaff v Flares)
In short everyone takes the basic facts and distorts them to try and misrepresent the truth in a media campaign. Rashamon. Alas knowing what actually happened is a sorely lacking priority to most people. Instead, half-assed and half-cocked fly around unchecked. Anyone who has ever read Janes or Somethingawful would know where the misrepresentations were occuring. Natural pre-requisites for… I don’t know… photojournalism and or war commentary.
As this episode shows, this knowledge is lacking among most everyone, especially the people whose job it is to know these things.
This is why most competent people read the news, make a heavy sigh, take another drink, and then go to work in their REAL jobs in the morning.
Even Channel Four news (at least as bad as the B.B.C. – for example, only today that degenerate “Jon” Snow was saying how Condi Rice “knew very little about the middle east” compared to the all wise Gen Sec of the United Nations) admitted that “this time to bloggers got it right” (about the disinformation photographs).
However, (of course) they added “most of the time the bloggers get it wrong” (no examples of “getting it wrong” were given) and called everyone “conspiracy theorists”.
This is odd as “conspiracy” implies something hidden away, whereas the hated of the media people for the United States and Israel is open and blatent (I believe it comes from the “education system” both school and college).
For example, they will denouce the Israelis for “scare tactics” for dropping leaflets saying they are going to blow up bridges one day, and the next day they will denounce the Israelis for blowing up bridges “without warning”.
I know most people here do not watch the network news – but please remember that this is how the vast majority of people get their news of the world.
Most people catch a radio or T.V. news broadcast sometime in the week – what percentage of people read blogs like this?
It’s all right, I’ve just read on the BBC “Blog” that these things happen, mainly due to the stringer trying to get the colour balancing of the picture right.
I can only assume that this is a complex process which meant he fumbled the controls and ended up accidentally cloning things instead.
The picture doesn’t load now, by the way.