Previous:

The Jawa Report roots out another Al-Reteurs pic a la photographer Adnan Hajj, who has now been suspended by Al-Reuters. Even the caption is a lie…

Adnan Hajj doctored pic removed from Reuters

(caption) An Israeli F-16 warplane fires missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, August 2, 2006. (LEBANON)

02 Aug 2006 REUTERS/Adnan Hajj

The Israeli jet was firing a flare, not missiles. Hajj thought he’d make it all the more dramatic by pasting in copies of the first flare to number three.

EU Referendum has a good analysis of what real flares look like when fired in sequence.
The question is, why didn’t Reuters spot this and how many other pix out of Lebanon are faked or “enhanced”?

As part of their coverup, Al-Reuters has now removed Adnan Hajj’s photos from their website but I managed to download a few yesterday so you can inspect them here.

Reuters is also emphasising that Adnan Hajj is a “freelancer” all of a sudden:

LONDON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Reuters withdrew all 920 photographs by a freelance Lebanese photographer from its database on Monday after an urgent review of his work showed he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hizbollah.

Global Picture Editor Tom Szlukovenyi called the measure precautionary but said the fact that two of the images by photographer Adnan Hajj had been manipulated undermined trust in his entire body of work.

Read the rest at Little Green Footballs: Reuters on the run

The BBC also has air-brushed pix on its news website, see here.

Michelle Malkin has a new logo suggestion for al Reuters and also a blogroll (and here) for your further reading.

Maggies Farm via Israpundit talks about the words to Hajj’s fraudulent pix.

The Guardian’s Jeff Jarvis asks why anyone would want to make war look worse than it does already.

Finally, Cox and Forkum says it in a picture of their own.

VIDEO:

No tags for this post.