Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, January 05, 2010


The New York Times has now run two articles on its Opinionator page which consist mainly of an interview with AP's Beirut photographer Ben Curtis (the only wire service photographer in Beirut who is not an Arab and the only one who was willing to talk to them - not a coincidence) about a picture he took during the Second Lebanon War. The picture in question is this one:

The first article is here and the second one is here.

I suggest that you read both.

I have two questions. First, if the Mickey Mouse was in a building that was bombed out, what is the likelihood that it was undamaged like that? And second, if the toy wasn't planted by someone (and I believe Curtis that he did not plant it), then how is it that at just about every bombing site that was photographed during the Second Lebanon War, posed pictures of children's toys would show up? Could that be coincidence? I doubt it.


At 7:52 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Fauxtography Alert. It just looks too good to be true.

At 12:43 PM, Blogger Akiva said...

Some were clearly posed. This one he has a good explanation for, saying he's standing in a pile of rubble from a bombed family apartment behind him, shooting _the other direction_. So the angle makes it look like it came from the far away building when it came a short distance from the one behind him.

Manipulative image. In some of the other pictures, clearly toys have been posed.


Post a Comment

<< Home