1. #1
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,407
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,638 Times in 3,706 Posts

    The MSM sure knows how to find quality talent....

    Reuters Reporter is Source for His Own Story

    I think I've seen it all now. An story from Reuters reporter Noor Mohammad Sherzai quotes extensively from ... Noor Mohammad Sherzai.

    And Sherzai claims U.S. troops opened fire on civilians in Afghanistan.

    If this story is proven to be bogus, will he claim he misquoted himself?

    A Google search for "Noor Mohammad Sherzai Reuters" and variations of the name returns only this story (and links to post such as these; discussing this article )

    Who is this Sherzai and why are there apparently no other stories by this individual?


    U.S. fire scatters crowd after Afghan bomb
    By Noor Mohammad Sherzai


    http://www.reuters.com/article/world...Name=worldnews
    BATI KOT, Afghanistan (Reuters) - U.S. troops opened fire on civilians near the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad on Thursday after a failed suicide car bomb attack on their convoy, a Reuters witness said.

    There was no immediate comment on the reported incident either from U.S.-led coalition forces or from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

    The witness said three suicide bombers in one vehicle attacked a convoy of U.S. troops in the village of Bati Kot, 15 km (9 miles) east of Jalalabad, but none of the soldiers was hurt.

    Two of the bombers were immediately killed in the blast. The third, dressed in a police uniform, survived only to be shot dead by troops, the witness said.

    A fire brigade vehicle arriving at speed at the scene then suffered brake failure and rammed into the U.S. vehicles. Troops inside then opened fire, wounding a number of bystanders.

    "I saw everything," said Reuters correspondent Noor Mohammad Sherzai. "I saw the suicide bomb attack ...

    "I saw the fire brigade vehicle rushing to the area at top speed, somehow its brakes failed and hit one police vehicle and coalition vehicles, then the Americans started firing at the people and everyone lay flat on the ground and then fled the area."

    Sherzai said a number of people had been wounded in the attack, but he did not know how many. "I ran away to save my own life."

    Sherzai and other reporters at the scene said many shots were fired and Afghan police were among those fleeing the scene.

    "I was running away as fast as I could, but some of the police overtook me," Sherzai said. The police, he said, "were very angry because the Americans were shooting and wanted to shoot back but others stopped them".[/quote]


    Another blogger Tom, asks: Uh, what exactly brought Sherzai to be in a position to witness a vehicle-bourn suicide attach on a (moving?) Coalition convoy? Was he embedded? Dumb luck? Or, was there a tip off that something might occur at those coordinates at that time? Further, Sherzai states that there were "other reporters at the scene" who also happened to by "lucky"? If the attack were on an outpost, checkpoint or other fixed target, I might be less skeptical. However, unless the reporter/witness was part of the convoy itself, I question the happenstance of the whole affair.

    Reuters suffered a tremendous credibility hit with the Adnan Hajj Fauxtography scandal...
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement The MSM sure knows how to find quality talent....
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,407
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,638 Times in 3,706 Posts
    New York Times Op-Ed Writer Plagiarizes Himself

    http://www.libertypundit.com/2007/09...rizes-himself/

    Another Jayson Blair moment for the New York Times? Kinda looks like it, if you look at the article published yesterday and compare it to an article he wrote in October 2005 (reg. required).

    From yesterday’s op-ed:

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
    From the 2005 op-ed:

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."
    From yesterday’s op-ed:

    "In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them. “I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.
    The 2005 op-ed:

    [quote]"Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.’s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960’s. And he began his general election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: “I believe in states’ rights.”

    Yesterday’s op-ed:

    "Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004."
    The 2005 op-ed:

    "George W. Bush had to try so hard to disenfranchise black voters in Florida in 2000; and why Jeb Bush had to call out the state police to try to intimidate black voters in Orlando, Fla., in 2004."
    If bloggers can find that kind of repetition so easily, why couldn’t the New York Times? And how many other articles of his are repeats of the same nonsense?

    One thing is for certain…this guy has his talking points down, wrong as they are, and he’s not afraid to keep beating the “Republicans are racists” horse. Just remember, though…the New York Times isn’t biased to the left at all, no sir.

    Riiiight.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,407
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,638 Times in 3,706 Posts
    Some things still haven't changed ....


    The Media, Their Polls and the False News They Produce
    By Seton Motley
    November 27, 2007 - 10:33 ET


    First published in Human Events on November 27th, 2007.

    Wash, spin, rinse, spin. Phone, spin, report, spin, poll, spin. The similarities between the work of the mainstream media and a laundry machine are striking. Yet there is nothing about the cycle -- the spin-report-poll-spin cycle -- that does for political events what detergent does for your boxers or briefs.

    The media, as One, spend days or weeks bashing someone or something they do not like. They then conduct a poll to prove to you that they were right all along. In a campaign season, their one-sided coverage is calculated, then executed to produce a result. It’s not about reporting the events, it’s about changing the prevailing view.

    And the polls -- such as the ones by the media, which are not independent surveys like those undertaken by the likes of Rasmussen or Gallup -- aren’t intended as much to gauge the public view of a candidate or events as they are to reinforce that which they have “reported”, or provide the media guidance on how effective their spinning of the news has been.

    The latest example of this is Reuters reporting on November 21 on a Reuters/Zogby poll under the header “Americans enter holidays in dark mood”.

    From which: “Americans enter the holiday season in a dark mood, with economic worries, security fears and a lack of confidence in government fueling growing pessimism, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll ….

    “‘All that bad news has a cumulative effect. It feeds and festers,’ (pollster John) Zogby said.” (Emphasis added.)

    So Zogby acknowledges that Reuters, et al are acting as sooth-sayers rather than truth tellers. That their ceaselessly predicting a recession in the face of all evidence, thereby downplaying what has been a fabulous economy, has some sort of long term consequence as to how the public views our fiscal situation.

    As evidenced in the story itself: “A majority of Americans, 55 percent, still rate their personal finances as good, up slightly from 54 percent last month.”

    In other words, they themselves are in good financial shape, but they have so often heard how bad it is out there that they are more broadly pessimistic despite their own experience. (“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying checkbook?”)

    That the excoriation of all things connected -- even remotely -- to President Bush, including the Administration’s handling of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, has had a lasting effect on how the populace views Washington. And it has helped foster and deepen the American people’s preexisting lack of trust in the federal government. (Last summer’s illegal immigration “reform” fiasco merely re-exhibited their inherent misgivings of all things Washington.)

    This lack of trust produces a great many reactions, including a fear of another terrorist attack despite our not been struck in over six years. (The media, of course, can not bring themselves to credit the Bush Administration for this.).

    Zogby’s poll results indirectly prove the irrelevance of the media’s cottage mistrust industry in its research and accompanying “news” story.

    This journalism-by-poll often leaves those of us at odds with the media narrative on the defensive, chasing months of inaccurate and bad coverage with too little, too late attempts to correct the record when the latest bad survey results are reported.

    By that point it is better to ask not for whom the poll tolls; it tolls for thee, ye Conservatives.

    What is needed is the sharper, faster promotion of things as they are, rather than allowing the media an unchallenged opportunity to report things as they wish they were. For them it is not “just the facts”, it is everything but.

    And facts are, as Mark Twain said, stubborn things. Therefore, despite our being outnumbered we are by no means outgunned. We must choose our battles or the media will choose them for us, on a field which they largely control.

    2008 is our quadrennial political Super Bowl. It is well past time to suit up and take the field.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...s-they-produce
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #4
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,407
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,638 Times in 3,706 Posts
    See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/vent-whi...ar-photos.html


    http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/G...ushPic0109.jpg


    January 9, 2009 - 14:46 ET


    Correction (Feb. 10, 2009): Corrected from original reporting attributing AP and Getty with the photo editing. In fact it was ABCNews.com, not AP or Getty Images that overlaid the Bush photo on the Gaza rubble photo. AP and Getty Images supplied the respective photos. Thanks to the folks at http://StinkyJournalism.org for pointing out the error.

    I guess, since flat-out fauxtography as practiced in 2006 in the Middle East has become so difficult, and has been shown as likely to be detected, that the press has decided to go with "creative" image placement to do the dirty work that must be done to create sympathy for Hamas and antipathy towards President Bush and the United States.

    For "some reason," the editors at ABCNews.com placed President Bush's image at its bottom right. The photo compilation (shown above) accompanied a report by Miguel Marquez and Simon McGregor-Wood that appears to have also run on the network's "World News" program. http://abcnews.go.com/International/...6564060&page=1

    The wreckage in the photo purports to be "the destroyed house of Hamas leader of Nizar Rayan following an Israeli air strike the day before in Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip" (given the state of reporting out of the region, one never knows for sure).

    There is no good reason for Mr. Bush's picture to be included, since:

    He had nothing to do with the attack.

    The United States had nothing to do with the attack.

    Both he and the United States, as far as I know, have not anything specific to indicate that they were particularly supportive of this specific attack.


    There are, however, really bad reasons for the photo placement or those who don't read the accompanying article:

    It associates Bush with the Gaza attack, perhaps even leading some to believe that he ordered it or was at least specifically supportive of it.

    The caption under the picture makes it appear as if Bush is dismissive of attacks such as these, and that his statement about a "one-way ceasefire" is uninformed.

    It's enough to make you wonder how much influence the world press's Arab-state paymasters still have.


    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...-gaza-wreckage
    http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/01/09/...gaza-wreckage/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Jolie Rouge For This Useful Post:

    anothersta (03-17-2009)

  7. #5
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,407
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,638 Times in 3,706 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #6
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,407
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,638 Times in 3,706 Posts
    When 8-Year-Old Dramatically Falls, Terrorists Think He’s Dead.
    But Why He’s Faking It is Courageous.

    By Kyle Becker - 4 days ago


    As an 8-year-old streaked across an open terrain of gunfire volleyed at him by terrorists, he only had one thing on his mind: to save a little girl pinned down behind a vehicle.

    Watch the inhuman fanatics screech as the boy fakes being mortally wounded, only to scramble for the vehicle where the girl is trapped.

    The New York Daily News and other outlets cross-checked the video with sources like the Telegraph, who consulted British experts who say the video is likely authentic.

    It is a testament to the kind of ruthlessness that even children have to face in the raging wars in Syria and Iraq.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/2013...ng-courageous/




    [B]Remember the Amazing Footage of Syrian Boy Rescuing Girl from Terrorists?
    The Truth Comes Out About It…[/
    B]
    By Juan Leon (4 hours ago)




    Recent footage of an 8-year-old Syrian boy dramatically rescuing a little girl from a hail of terrorist gunfire has been revealed as a hoax.
    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/2013...ng-courageous/



    A Norwegian filmmaker deliberately created the hoax and even filmed it on the same set used by the movie Gladiator in order to ‘raise awareness’ about children victims of war. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-actors.html

    VICE News reported on the recent revelation by Oslo-based filmmaker Lars Klevberg. Klevberg sent out a message through his Twitter account: https://news.vice.com/article/video-...rce=vicenewsfb



    Compare the behind-the-scenes footage above and the viral video itself and it becomes clear how manipulative the directors were:



    As VICE News noted, Klevberg’s announcement was met with swift backlash, questioning the ethics of the hoax and Klevberg’s motivations for making the video:



    Many Twitter users viewed the stunt as irresponsible:



    IJ Review did not publish the original footage until it sought authentication by numerous sources, such as the New York Daily News, New York Post and the Telegraph, which confirmed as likely authentic by British experts. We apologize for the error. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/2013...ng-courageous/

    As for this story, it appears that the filmmakers got what they wanted from the stunt – more publicity. But a powerful movie depicting how children become victims in warfare would have been equally effective, and certainly a lot more ethical.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/202856-syrian-boy-hoax/

    comments

    I've been restoring photos, taking photos for over 40 years. NEVER trust a photo, and be very careful about trusting video. You can't trust anyone these days, how sad is that?

    ...

    I am sure worse has happened to children that the media as not even reported. This was a hoax, but the reality is innocent men, women and children have been abused and slaughter all in the name of Islam. That is the real shame.



    More Fauxtography coverage ... this is not a recent trend :

    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...-affair-2.html

    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...andards-5.html

    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...r-there-3.html

    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...s-money-2.html
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 11-16-2014 at 10:59 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Jolie Rouge For This Useful Post:

    Eddie (11-25-2014)

  10. #7
    Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    326
    Thanked 856 Times in 585 Posts

    What the Fake Syria Sniper Boy Video Tell Us About Media Experts

    Many mainstream media websites helped a fake video go viral this month. The video showing a young Syrian boy running through sniper fire to save a little girl, was exposed as a fake when the Norwegian producer Lars Klevberg made the fact public. One of the stated aims of the Norwegian film makers was to “see how the media would respond to a fake video.” This article examines how that experiment went.

    The western press very quickly accepted the video as real and used it to support the US administration’s narrative on Syria. Many top US news sources began to spread the story. Even though the producer said he explicitly added big hints that the video was fake, like the children surviving multiple gun shots.

    Propagating false stories on Syria, is nothing new for the western press. In the lead up to the conflict many stories were exposed as frauds, such as the Anti-government activist “Gay Girl in Damascus” which turned out to be a middle-aged American man in Scotland. Syrian Danny Abdul Dayem which was frequently interviewed by CNN was using fake gun fire and flames in his interviews.

    The fake sniper video wasn’t enough to support US government narratives by itself, as the now deleted original upload didn’t suggest the identity of the snipers. So the west’s media suggested that it was Syrian military snipers that were targeting the children without any evidence. Journalists failed to mention how they reached the conclusion that an actor in Malta was shot by the Syrian military. It may be that the western press is quick to trust pro-rebel sources, as the video was uploaded by the pro-rebel Sham Times along with their own twist.

    The Guardian’s headline for the video was “Syrian boy ‘saves girl from army sniper’” and the Telegraph delicately suggested the Syrian military was responsible for the fake bullets. The International Business (IB) times stated, “the snipers, who reportedly are said to be the government forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” IB Times never explicitly mentioned who reported this information. They then took it a step further and concluded the article with “the incident certainly is not the first time that Pro-Assad gunmen have targeted children”. Well it is at least not the first time the mainstream media has presented false reports as fact. In 2012, CNN claimed a bullet that killed a four year old girl in Aleppo was shot by government snipers even whilst admitting the bullet came from rebel held buildings.

    Other journalists took to Twitter to make unfounded claims about army snipers targeting the boy. Vinnie O’Dowd who has done work for Channel 4 and Al Jazeera tweeted “Syrian Regime Targets kids. Liz Sly of the Washington Post tweeted incredulously that “Soldiers kept shooting” at children.

    These tweets were inline with an official State Department Twitter account @ThinkAgain_DOS which blamed Assad for the fictitious bullets in the film. This casts doubt on how deeply the US administration scrutinizes information it bases it’s policy on. In 2013 they relied heavily on video footage provided by rebels to support its planned attack on Syria in the wake the Ghouta chemical attack.

    Scrutinising the Scrutinisers (Experts)

    But it isn’t just the mainstream media that was easily duped by the convenient propaganda film. The video experts that were asked to scrutinise the video, failed to recognise that the video was a fraud. The Telegraph stated that upon enquiry ‘experts told them they had no reason to doubt that the video is real”. International Business Times went a step further spinning the statement to “experts told The Telegraph that they have no doubts on the authenticity of the footage.”

    This is very strange since both children in the film walk away after being directly and repeatedly hit by bullets. The creators of the film said he purposely scripted this as a big hint that the video is fake. The lack of scrutiny the media experts employed suggests incompetence or the same level of bias as the media that employs them .

    Heather Saul of the Independent wrote that one of the ‘Middle East experts” she showed the video to was from Human Rights Watch. Indeed, Human Rights Watch European Media Director Andrew Stroehlein, showed no doubt on the authenticity of the film when he tweeted it out to his followers. The New York based human rights organisation is not new at tweeting false information, last month they used an image of the Odessa fire, where US-backed militia’s burned thirty two people to death, as an example of ‘Putin’s repressive policies’. In 2008 Venezuela expelled two HRW staff members accused of “anti-state activities” after producing a report against the Chavez government. Guardian journalist Hugh O’Shaughnessy accused HRW of using false and misleading information in the report, as well as pro-Washington bias. In 2009 HRW received financial donations from the Saudi government which may, in part, explain the anti-Syrian slant.

    HRW employed so called video expert Eliot Higgins and his colleague Daniel Kaszeta to investigate the August 21 chemical attack in Ghouta, and quickly reached the conclusion the Syrian government was behind the attack. Daniel Kaszeta was referred to as a fraud by prominent physicist and MIT Professor Theodore Postol. HRW’s CEO Kenneth Roth recently used a report by Eliot Higgins to make unfounded claims about Ukrainian rebels shooting down Malaysian flight MH17. Heather Saul did not respond to questions on whether Eliot Higgins was one of the expert she asked for advice. However the mainstream media’s most often quoted video expert, did not recognise that the video was a fraud, tweeting cautiously that he wasn’t sure if it was authentic but gave the video a reaction non the less.

    However many viewers who aren’t referred to as video or Middle East experts, immediately recognised the video was a fraud and flooded social media sites Twitter and Youtube with doubts on its authenticity. If Heather Saul had used these individuals as experts rather than HRW, she would have reached the correct conclusion about the video. But perhaps it is this unbias eye that the mainstream media avoids. The vast majority of Higgin’s conclusions support US government narratives and agendas, and that’s the kind of bias the mainstream media prefers.

    Blaming the Producer

    Instead of humbly accepting blame for spreading disinformation, many western journalists and their experts reacted by blaming the producer of the film. The collective rage of the entire mainstream media forced the film’s producer to delete any trace of this 30,000 dollar experiment. Some journalists took to Twitter to express their rage at being exposed as easily duped by convenient propaganda.

    The experts that were fooled by the video also strongly protested. HRW posted a complaint that the fake video “eroded the public trust in war reporting’, in other words blind trust in HRW analysis and war propaganda. Eliot Higgins posted an open letter to the producer of the film on his website Bellingcat, condemning the film.

    GlobalPost referred to the film as ‘irresponsible and dangerous’ but not because it could be used to promote wars and make false accusations. What the real danger to the mainstream media and their experts seems to be, is that as a result of the films exposure as a fraud, future video claims may now have to be properly scrutinized and the public may not be so unquestioning in future. However it is the journalists’ lack of scrutiny that is truly what is irresponsible and dangerous. Had the director not admitted the film was fake, these journalists more than likely would have kept promoting the story as an example of Syrian Army war crimes.

    http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/27/wh...media-experts/

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Eddie For This Useful Post:

    Jolie Rouge (11-27-2014)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in