Reuters uses hoax-detection software for images

posted at 12:19 pm on August 8, 2006 by Allahpundit

In much the same way as I use RealPlayer, or so it would seem. That is, it’s on my desktop.

But it doesn’t get opened very often.

CNET, January 2006:

Farid’s interest in photo retouching isn’t just historical. The professor of computer science and applied mathematics runs [Dartmouth]‘s Image Science Group, which has emerged as one of the chief research centers in the U.S. for developing software to detect manipulation in digital photographs.

While some of the group’s software is now used by the FBI and large media organizations such as Reuters, a version written in Java will come out soon that will be easier to use and thereby allow more police and media organizations to sniff out fraud. The current software is written in Matlab, a numerical computing environment.

“I hope to have a beta out in the next six months,” Farid said. “Right now, you need someone who is reasonably well-trained to use it.”

Again: so it would seem.

Speaking of which, yesterday Reuters was insisting that no editor had looked at Hajj’s photos:

The two altered photographs were among 43 that Hajj filed directly to the Reuters Global Pictures Desk since the start of the conflict on July 12 rather than through an editor in Beirut, as was the case with the great majority of his images.

Today they’re admitting one did:

Garry Hershorn, a photo editor for Reuters, says the Beirut smoke photo was retracted immediately after it was transmitted.

“This one slipped through the system,” Hershorn says. “It just came in. A photo editor looked at it and coded it and sent it to our clients.”

Which news agency filed the original, erroneous report suggesting the image hadn’t been pre-screened?

Right. Reuters.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can you say… “methinks [they] dost protest too much”??

RH

RobertHuntingdon on August 8, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Proudly brought to you by the manufacturers of the New York Times Bias Detector.

Kid from Brooklyn on August 8, 2006 at 12:56 PM

Well the one thing that wasn’t really brought out about this photoshopping is that staged photos have been around for as long as we’ve had cameras on the battlefield: think Matthew Brady in the Civil War. If these stupid libs who defend this clown from Reuters were smart they would say he’s following in the long and hallowed tradition of staging photos going all the way back to the American Civil War.

Catie96706 on August 8, 2006 at 1:52 PM

A photo editor looked at it and coded it

Hmmm..wonder what Reuters codes are for this type of picture:

Code: Pathological Jew-Hating Nazi-like Propaganda Shot From Arab Stringer…

WriterMom on August 8, 2006 at 1:56 PM

Can you say “bullshit?” I knew you could.

Al-Reuters is anti-Israel, anti-US, and pro-terrorist. Don’t think otherwise.

James Taranto wrote:

Far more dangerous than the hard anti-Americanism of the far left (and some elements of the far right) is the moral relativism that prevails among Western liberal elites, especially in journalism. Exhibit A is Reuters. As we noted on Sept. 24, 2001:

Stephen Jukes, global news editor for Reuters, the British wire service, has ordered his scribes not to use the word terror to refer to the Sept. 11 atrocity. . . . “We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist,” Jukes writes in an internal memo. “To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack.”

Reuters is the most self-righteous about it, but many other news organizations also use terms like militants, commandos, guerrillas and even dissidents to refer to terrorists–even though in some cases these terms are not only overly solicitous to the enemy but factually inaccurate (a guerrilla attack, for instance, has a military target, while a terrorist attack targets civilians).

If anybody still believes that this was a “mistake” by Reuters, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

georgej on August 8, 2006 at 4:37 PM

I agree. BS, Reuters’ “mistake” is just one more screwup to add to there list.

-BJU

umbergbr on August 8, 2006 at 6:49 PM