E&P editor publishes part two of his attack on bloggers

posted at 2:08 pm on August 24, 2006 by Allahpundit

I use the word “his” loosely. 95% of it consists of comments reprinted from the thread at Lightstalkers in which Bryan Denton first accused photographers of directing aid workers to dig up bodies so they could photograph them. Denton’s comments, including his original accusation, are among those reprinted, so at least Mitchell had the integrity to finally clue his readers in to the charge here.

I encourage you to read his piece all the way through, noting especially:

(a) Thorne Anderson’s comparison of Qana-questioning bloggers to Holocaust deniers, a slur that’s particularly rich in the context of a conversation about Iran’s terrorist proxy;

(b) Oscar Sosa’s defense of Hezbollah propaganda on grounds that “a lot of stories here in Jacksonville where the people I’m photographing have their own agenda” too;

(c) the relentless browbeating of Bryan Denton as the thread wears on, culminating in his exasperated reiteration that most of his colleagues are beyond reproach — even as he stands by his original charge; and

(d) the fact that not a single one of the photographers quoted by Mitchell, not one, can muster an unqualified condemnation of what Denton claims to have seen. Not. One. Timothy Fadek does say early on that he’s “angry” — at Denton, for having started such an “incendiary rumor.” Worse still, note the extent to which they’re willing to justify staged photos as legitimate news. Thorne Anderson:

Photographing the display is not necessarily deceitful, but rather an honest record of the extraordinary ways people react in these terrible circumstances. And a rescue worker displaying a body does not a Media Mogul the rescue worker make.

Oscar Sosa:

Editors send us off all the time to shoot press conferences and ‘media opportunities.’ We need to evaluate every situation we encounter and make an objective decision as to how we cover these stories. I wasn’t at Qana, but Tim Fadek was. If he says photos weren’t staged, then that’s good enough for me.

I don’t know what to say, except that if these guys see no higher ethical obligation in war photography than press-conference photography; if they have no moral objection to enabling the exploitation of children’s corpses for propaganda purposes; if they detect no corruption in their presence at the scene of a newsworthy event shaping the participants’ actions during the event; then David Perlmutter‘s got a bigger job ahead of him than he realizes.

If you’ve never seen it, here’s the vid of mild-mannered civil defense worker Salam Daher, a.k.a., Green Helmet, “reacting in an extraordinary way” on the scene in Qana.

Update: Confederate Yankee responds to Mitchell at length:

This E&P editorial chooses to dodge the real issues of the media’s vetting of the accuracy of the stories and photographs that they chose to print coming out of Lebanon and other venues, just as they dodged how so many pictures and events ever had reason to be questioned in the first place.

Greg Mitchell, Editor of Editor & Publisher shows himself to be a prime example of exactly what bloggers fear most in the media; a newscrafter, not a newsman, with a quite specific and heavily partisan agenda. He seems terrified that if the public actually looked too closely at how the sometimes tainted product of the news business is manufactured, they might discover it has fewer quality checks than a disposable diaper, and sadly, sometimes ends up smelling much the same.


Related Posts:

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

Weekend hacks take pictures, pro photographers make images/pictures.

But now, disgustingly, making a picture just got a new meaning. Thanks, you lowlife shooters. But please just ruin yourself, not our industry.

shooter on August 24, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Hack-o-rama, as Howie Carr would say.

JammieWearingFool on August 24, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Gotta luv the good stuff from Etidor and Pulbisher.

thirteen28 on August 24, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Disgusting. Shameful. Unethical. Evil.

NTWR on August 24, 2006 at 2:23 PM

And as far as the E&P “article?” LAZY. Just cut and paste the comments you like to make your point.

NTWR on August 24, 2006 at 2:26 PM

Yet,if these photogs were at a staged corporate press conference and there was any hint of dastardly deeds to be uncovered,you can bet cash money that the newsroom would leave no stone unturned to make that company look bad, Unless of course they were in bed with said corporation with co-mingling of monies and such.Once again in their own inept way these clowns have admitted that they aid and abet the terrorist message,with no question.

bbz123 on August 24, 2006 at 2:34 PM

Editors send us off all the time to shoot press conferences and ‘media opportunities.’ We need to evaluate every situation we encounter and make an objective decision as to how we cover these stories.

Of course, when a press conference or photo op is being reported, there’s rarely any question as to what the photos depict.

I wasn’t at Qana, but Tim Fadek was. If he says photos weren’t staged, then that’s good enough for me.

But if Salam Daher says they were staged, then what?

OT: Allah, did you catch this? Officials Release 12 Arrested Men

No discussion of exactly what the “suspicious” behavior was.

Pablo on August 24, 2006 at 2:42 PM

“With all this new technology we’re zooming back and forth just bouncing all over the place. It’s good we’ve slowed down a little and started to talk about this again. Today I sent a picture off to a wire service. It was an editorial shoot and I used a slow shutter speed to blur the background. Usually when I check-in my images I get an ‘it’s fine, bye.’ Today the editor asked me if the blurring was done in-camera.

So, there’s … something. But it continues (my em):

“I’m not the least bit worried about the state of journalism or how we’re covering these stories and presenting them to our audiences. Our viewers are smart and know when they’re being fed crap. The critics of journalists have already made up their minds and no matter how perfect we are their opinions won’t change. All we can do is be honest and present our work in an ethical manner.”

I can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean. Viewers are smart enough to know when they are fed crap, and when they are, they can be expected to write posts on LFG and HA and Malkin? That doesn’t seem to be the spirit. It seems their viewers are now aware that they are being fed crap, and they are howling about it. So now what?
Mitchell’s whole point of view, this two-part defense, is summed up here:

–by rightwing bloggers aiming, as always, to discredit the media as a whole.

He’s arguing a defense of the MSM in general. His arguments need to be understood in that context.

Axe on August 24, 2006 at 3:11 PM

His arguments need to be understood in that context.

Sorry; forgot myself. I should have written “His arguments should probably be understood in that context.”

… prefer respectful suggestions to emphatic demands :)

Axe on August 24, 2006 at 3:40 PM

What I find most sad is that yet another institution has been subordinated to a liberal agenda. Editor and Publisher was once a good trade publication, but Mitchell seems intent on using it as his own personal bullhorn to speak out against the Bush administration.

Slublog on August 24, 2006 at 4:16 PM

We need to evaluate every situation we encounter and make an objective decision as to how we cover these stories.

LOL! He literally doesn’t know what objective means.

B Moe on August 24, 2006 at 4:20 PM

I use the word “his” loosely.

Heh…

Jaibones on August 24, 2006 at 4:26 PM

It’s selective objectivity.

Rick on August 24, 2006 at 4:33 PM

This link will be helpful to those just learning how to be part of the reform media.

NTWR on August 24, 2006 at 5:46 PM

… prefer respectful suggestions to emphatic demands :)

Axe on August 24, 2006 at 3:40 PM

Allegedly,

rightwing bloggers are aiming, as always, to discredit the media elephant as a whole when they’d be much better off chewing on one caption, one picture and one article, at a time

Entelechy on August 24, 2006 at 6:34 PM

All I needed to know about media veracity I first learned from “Uncle” Walter Cronkite in 1968. First during the Tet Offensive and second, during his coverage of the Democratic Party Convention.

I was there, in Grant Park, and what was televised and what Cronkite narrated was a lie. It was staged by the rioters FOR the cameras, just like they are doing in the Middle East today.

Like the rest of us, I received another refresher course from Dan Rather in September 2004.

georgej on August 24, 2006 at 7:03 PM

Entelechy, that’s so damned brilliant that I refuse to make any comment about it, except that it’s brilliant.

And so the jag ends on a high note.

Axe on August 24, 2006 at 7:49 PM

Let me get this straight. These are the same liberals who cry “STAGED”, when Bush speaks at a military institution and receives thunderous applause? But throwing around dead bodies like frisbees and unearthing, unsoiled corpses who come complete with rigor mortis is no biggie?

I see, said the blind man.

Soothsayer on August 24, 2006 at 7:51 PM

Axe, allegedly, you are right. I emphatically agree with you :)

Entelechy on August 24, 2006 at 9:58 PM

Every time that the news media has covered something of which I had direct knowledge, they’ve gotten basic facts wrong. I therefore assume that they have a similar batting average on the other stories.

The Monster on August 25, 2006 at 11:53 PM