back to article BBC uses lifted Iraq war photo to depict Syrian slaughter

They're at it again. Who? Take a guess: if it's not the Daily Mail, then it's probably the BBC. The corporation has once again been caught pinching photos, wrongly attributing them, and pretending nothing ever happened - in a triumph of crowd-sourced "citizen journalism". But this incident of photo-lifting is slightly more …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Thumb Down

Clear disclaimer. None story. Send it to the Daily Heil Andrew.

6
39

FTR I do know most of this comes from there, wouldn't surprise me if Orlowski perused those sites and others like Stormfront.

0
18
Anonymous Coward

No

A disclaimer doesn't cut it.

If I put a disclaimer on my car saying "The driver will not accept liability for any harm caused to pedestrians who allow any part of their body to hit this car at speed" it doesn't mean I can do 100mph outside a primary school without impunity does it?

31
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: No

"If I put a disclaimer on my car saying "The driver will not accept liability for any harm caused to pedestrians who allow any part of their body to hit this car at speed" it doesn't mean I can do 100mph outside a primary school without impunity does it?"

What a pointless and irrelevant analogy. Thanks for your imput.

7
26
Anonymous Coward

Re: No

Sill analogy, much closer would "Sold as seen" - up to you to check the brakes work etc.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Much as I enjoy watching Orlowski get told how much some of his articles fail, I have to wonder what the problem is if he does peruse Stormfront?

I have done myself on occasion. It's like watching two retards having a mud-fighting contest. It's slightly scary, and you really shouldn't laugh but...

3
0
Anonymous Coward

The BBC are not what they used to be.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "without impunity"

Of course, you meant to say 'with impunity'.

Impunity - 'im' as in not, 'punity' as in punishment.

1
0

Why, oh why...

Why are all of Andrew's stories about copyright? The right's holder wouldn't have made a penny if the BBC had done their checks, as the image was inappropriate. As a result of their cock-up he probably has made some money.

1
24
FAIL

Re: Why, oh why...

Because IP is an obvious interest of his.

Is your argument seriously that "its ok, because they received compensation after the fact" ?

It doesn't just border on the ridiculous, its invaded installed a puppet government.

11
1

Why, oh why...

Why are all of Nick Robinson's articles for the BBC on politics?

Why are all of Murray Walker's TV reports on Formula 1?

Why does Bill Bailey only perform comic music?

It's his job, muppet.

15
0
Joke

Re: Why, oh why...

Why are all of LinkOfHyrule's posts on this forum troll-ish?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Why, oh why...

Oh right, its all about money, always then is it? You'll get by in the world a little better if you don't exclusively judge the rest of the species on your own narrow values.

You might want to broaden your reading too. Along the way you might work out why some journalists write only on particular topics and others don't.

3
0
Silver badge
FAIL

There are tools for this sort of thing.

Has no one at the BBC ever heard of Tineye?

5
0
FAIL

or even..

Google goggles, which i have just pointed at the picture in the article and which then immediately brought up the correct image and associated links to getty.

3
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Really?

Do we really need a "copyright violation is theft and straving artists" angle on this kind of stark incompetence by the BBC which seems to be designed to push for another "NATO humanitarian intervention by DU distribution" in a country no-one knows anything about?

I don't think so.

"Thanks to technology lowering the costs of production and distribution, we are all creators now, and we need our rights protecting against their unauthorised, unpaid use by media giants - who want to use our work for no cost and at no risk."

I detest the concept of "creator" and the idea that one should have pennies shoved into one's bank account for every crap one comes up with. Because of "rights". Sod that.

8
23
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Really?

If you don't want rights over your work it's already possible to give them up. I fail to see though why the rest of us should have to give away our work for free just because you don't want to be paid.

23
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Really?

Spoken as a truly ignorant consumer.

"...the idea that one should have pennies shoved into one's bank account for every crap one comes up with".

What utter drivel and that's clearly not what's being implied at all - this is a discussion about use without permission. If something is crap and therefore not worth anything, they wouldn't be choosing to use it in the first place. By definition, choosing to use it gives it value so you don't have a valid argument here.

If I take a photo for my own personal use I don't expect anyone to give me anything for that. If I decide to share it with my friends that is my choice. If a *commercial* organisation, ie, one that intends to directly or indirectly profit in a financial or other way, from the use of a photo decides that they want to use MY photo rather than get one of their *paid* photographers to go and get a similar photo themselves, they can ask for permission and abide by my terms. If they don't receive my permission or refuse my terms then they can use a different photo or live without. That is how a free market works.

22
1
Bronze badge

Re: Really?

Check out the photos taken by Magnum photographer from WWII, or indeed more recent wars. 'Every crap' was them risking their lives, or at least living dangerously, to record what was happening.

Photographs that report are essentail and eventually historic witnesses. They have value. We honour that value by paying for them.

9
0
FAIL

Re: Really?

"I detest the concept of "creator" and the idea that one should have pennies shoved into one's bank account for every crap one comes up with. Because of "rights". Sod that."

Well, that's a bit stupid, isn't it.

Where do you think those pennies come from? The Penny Fairy?

4
0
FAIL

Re: Really?

If Destroy All Monsters's suggestion were to be followed, then it would completely remove the incentive for the vast majority of creative work to be produced world-wide.

As in, it really would Destroy the music, video, film, journalism, photography industries et al, and not only All Monsters.

1
0
Silver badge

Cock-up indeed, even with disclaimer, but don't blame the teacher

"Either the team responsible for this cock-up didn't attend - or those teaching the courses need to be fired."

As a (senior) lecturer, I cannot accept responsibility for all cock-ups my students make after following or even passing my course. The people teaching the course in source attribution may have been sterling, but let us not forget a student's ability to forget, misconstrue, or otherwise garble any information or skills imparted to them. I have seen all too often that students learn things only to the level to pass the exam, and then get totally plastered to ensure they erase that section of memory as effectively as possible. Fortunately, there are also many students who really want to learn and work hard at it. I have long ago decided to focus my efforts on the latter class, and lose no sleep over the former. After all, they are grown ups, they are responsible.

Many image search tools exist, they should have been able to find the source. If anyone is to be fired, fire those responsible.

11
0

Re: Cock-up indeed, even with disclaimer, but don't blame the teacher

As a (senior) lecturer, you probably have no concept of how unabidably crap the average corporate trainer is. It's a certificate culture out there, and the delegates (I won't demean the term "student" by using it here) are expected to sit, listen, maybe "brainstorm" a bit, then walk away with a piece of paper.

It's really rather disheartening.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Cock-up indeed, even with disclaimer, but don't blame the teacher

"It's a certificate culture out there"

You mean that's totally unknown of in university circles?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Cock-up indeed, even with disclaimer, but don't blame the teacher

"As a (senior) lecturer, you probably have no concept of how unabidably crap the average corporate trainer is. It's a certificate culture out there, and the delegates (I won't demean the term "student" by using it here) are expected to sit, listen, maybe "brainstorm" a bit, then walk away with a piece of paper."

Actually, a colleague had to follow an "Academic Leadership" training given by a corporate trainer. His description was telling. Unabidable crap is a fitting designation. The trainer asked questions like: "what would you do if a PhD student turns up at 9:30 each morning?"

Answer by (experienced) trainees varied from: "Nothing, as long as he gets his work done," to "Commend him for consistently arriving before the head of the department."

These were not the right answers according to the trainer (who clearly had no concept of an academic working environment). He honestly expected people to work regular 9-5 shifts. When criticised that this was not how we work, and that many PhD students work say 10 am to 8 pm shifts r longer, he stated this was no way to run a lab. He was questioned whether he had ever run a research department, he had to admit this was not the case, but he stuck to his guns that he knew how it should be run.

My colleague and all other trainees considered the course a complete waste of time, but you had to get the certificate for the new tenure track system. I gather they have now got rid of this course.

1
0
tgm
FAIL

propaganda?

"The photograph, taken in 2003 by photojournalist Marco Di Lauro and licensed to Getty Images, was passed on to the BBC by an anonymous source for propaganda purposes."

I believe that statement is a far better example of "propaganda".

6
6
Unhappy

Re: propaganda?

Like you, I had to double-check the banner to make sure I really was reading the Reg when I read that atrocious sentence. What, exactly, is Orlowsky going on about now? I know most independent web rags hate the BBC for its 'unfair' position in the market space, and Mr O is particularly rampant, but Christ on a crutch! 'Propaganda'? Is he on a mission or what?

4
3

This post has been deleted by its author

FAIL

Re: propaganda? (@Blitterbug)

If you re-read the article (or maybe read it for the first time? Or just read the title of the article?) you see that the sentence in question came from the screenshot taken from the BBC website. In no way did the author of this article write that sentence.

As for 'what is he going on about' - well, that's simple, right? Someone sends in an image, BBC Editor uses that image without checking proper sources.

It has nothing to do with any unfair position of the BBC in the market space.

If you can't understand the wrongness of such practices - well, i guess you are in the company of a growing number of 'esteemed' Anonymous Cowards with opinions about how every photo should be copyright-free.

I on the other hand, like 'giving credit where credit is due'.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: propaganda?

If you're going to attack someone in claimed familiarity then it might be beneficial to show said familiarity by actually spelling their name properly. Otherwise you just look like an ignorant so-and-so.

1
0
Gold badge

Re: propaganda?

"What, exactly, is Orlowsky going on about now? I know most independent web rags hate the BBC for its 'unfair' position in the market space, and Mr O is particularly rampant, but Christ on a crutch! 'Propaganda'?"

It's pretty clear really. He's not accusing the BBC of propaganda. He's accusing whoever forwarded the photo to them of doing so for propaganda purposes. i.e. find photo of a different massacre, and forward it on to the Beeb, claiming it's from this one.

The BBC were the victim of said propaganda. Although they have access to plenty of tools to be checking the image, and they're a massively well-funded organisation. Plus they are well aware that it's going on, and not all reports are honest or unbiased. Plus they took it from an anonymous source, which is even worse. So they have no excuse.

1
0
Meh

Re: propaganda? (@Blitterbug)

...Which is why I *never* post anonymously... and I wasn't claiming to not understand wrongful attribution. Clearly this was bungled. I'm expressing a growing concern over Mr O's increasing tendency to rant.

0
0
Happy

Re: propaganda?

'claimed familiarity'? Was that aimed at me? How quaint!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Hmm...

I'm reminded of when Sky News published photos of (IIRC) the London Marathon from citezen journalists, but actually it was B3TA and the photo in question had Madeline McCann photoshopped into it. At least this isn't obviously a fake.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

An accidental clue?

Maybe this photograph, showing hundreds of dead bodies from Iraq, gives us a clue about what is really wrong with the mainstream media's reporting about Syria. We are told that about 100 people were killed, perhaps by government forces, perhaps by "activists", perhaps by militiamen aligned with one side or the other. Among them were many children. As a result, "Western" nations are severing diplomatic relations with Syria, ordering Syrian ambassadors and staff to leave! Stern measures.

Meanwhile, the US government is responsible for over 2 million deaths in Iraq (including at least 500,000 children according to Madeleine Albright) - excluding the maimed, injured, bereaved, and homeless - and tens of thousands at least in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hardly a week goes by without a story like this: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/23/11839215-pakistan-official-us-drone-strike-hits-mosque-10-killed?lite. Wedding parties wiped out, mosques obliterated, funerals bombed: here a dozen civilians, there a handful of pre-teen goat-herds... So when are US diplomats going to be expelled by right-thinking governments? Yes, that's right, never.

31
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

An upvote isnt enough. This is a very valid point. I am outraged at whats going on in Syria, and at Russia etc, but I realise we (the 'west') are hypocrits. Theres very little difference between whats going on in Syria and what was done in Iraq, except perhaps the scale and sophistication of the weaponry. And please don't tell me its worse to kill a child with a bullet than with a missile or some such crud.

12
2
Silver badge

Re: An accidental clue?

The war in Iraq/Libya and Syria are entirely different - Syria doesn't have any oil

Arabs without oil ? Fsck-em

7
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

2 million? Reliable sources please.

Yes there has been a lot of deaths but as far as I can tell the highest figure I can find is just under 110,000. Still a lot of people and yes people should be outraged but coming out with unjustified hysterical propaganda helps no-one.

6
2
Silver badge

Re: An accidental clue?

I'm as unhappy as most people about what has gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan but it worries me that you see no difference between (possibly avoidable) civilian deaths caused by an invading foreign military and a government using it's military to kill citizens who show dissent.

6
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

No oil in Syria? Why do people always trot out this rubbish. Of course there is oil in Syria.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

Well, Anonymous Coward, I assumed that anyone participating in a serious discussion like this would know the facts and figures. Evidently you haven't troubled to inform yourself, so here are some basic sources.

Here is US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright copping to the 500,000 dead children on live TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

More about Albright (or try Wikipedia):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30942

The Lancet studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

The ORB study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

Note that the Lancet and ORB studies were published in 2006 and 2007 - five years ago. Iraqis have been dying in large numbers every day since then, hence my extrapolation to 1-1.5 million excess deaths by now. According to Colin Powell's Pottery Barn Rule, "you break it, you own it". (Obama has rejected this precept).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule

5
4
Bronze badge

Re: An accidental clue?

"The war in Iraq/Libya and Syria are entirely different - Syria doesn't have any oil

Arabs without oil ? Fsck-em"

fsck them? I didn't know they had problems with their hard drives, maybe that's the solution we all failed to see!!

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

"I'm as unhappy as most people about what has gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

So you don't give a shit.

Actually, I DO see a difference between civilian deaths caused by "an invading foreign military" and a government using force to put down an armed rebellion. The invading foreign military you are probably referring to was committing what the Nuremberg Tribunal called " the supreme international crime": an unprovoked war of aggression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

So the deaths caused by the invasion were illegal and unjustifiable. They were also far more, by a factor of at least 1,000 - probably more.

The government of Syria is apparently using force to resist a heavily armed rebellion by people whom the BBC call "activists" or "the opposition". If such people acted in such a way in the UK or USA, our governments would unhesitatingly call them "terrorists". Indeed, last time some people tried - not to overthrow the government of the USA, but just to declare independence from it - they were brutally repressed in a war that killed over half a million people.

6
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: An accidental clue?

The war in Iraq may have been illegal but why do people like yourself always brush over the fact it was an illegal war that removed a genocidal dictator (regardless of whether you believe that was Bush's intention)?

The Syrian 'opposition' as far as I know weren't well armed until after the government started it's crackdown and still aren't well armed by any standard a professional military would recognise. If you think shelling your own cities to put down rebels with small arms is a sound tactic I really hope you're not in the military.

Also, taking the actions of people out of context and describing them as terrorists is ridiculous. If America's founding fathers had attempted their revolution in modern times they'd just be armed, tax dodging terrorists.

2
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

"The war in Iraq may have been illegal but why do people like yourself always brush over the fact it was an illegal war that removed a genocidal dictator (regardless of whether you believe that was Bush's intention)?"

The clue is in the word "illegal". (Also the words "supreme international crime"). As for "genocidal", the USA and its allies killed far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Do you think removing a dictator is worth 2 million lives? (If so, you may be related to Madeleine Albright). Lastly, Iraq under Saddam was probably the most advanced, civilised, and secular Muslim nation in the Middle East. The war has put it back a hundred years. Today the place is as riven by religious mania and violence as medieval Europe; no woman can safely be educated or go out to work or wear Western dress; Christians and Jews go in peril of their lives; death may strike anyone, anywhere, without warning.

As for "dictator", ask yourself how much more influence you have over the way your country is run than the average Iraqi had under Saddam Hussein. Over a million people marched through London to protest against Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Tony Blair ignored them completely.

6
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

"The Syrian 'opposition' as far as I know weren't well armed until after the government started it's crackdown and still aren't well armed by any standard a professional military would recognise".

Neither are the Taliban. Yet it's now 10 years and counting since the USA invaded their country, and it is losing. Neither were the Viet Cong, nor the French Resistance.

"If you think shelling your own cities to put down rebels with small arms is a sound tactic I really hope you're not in the military".

No, I'm not. But the US military does that all the time - when helicopters, B52s and drones aren't handy. And they use white phosphorus, which I haven't heard of the Syrians using. The cities they shell aren't in their own country, of course - do you sincerely believe that makes it better?

2
3
Silver badge
Megaphone

Re: An accidental clue?

Show me a war that wasn't illegal in some way and I'll give you my life savings. One minute you're criticising the US for dodgy tactics, the next you're saying it's ok for the Syrian government to use those tactics because the Americans do.

You say over a million people marched through London and then point out it achieved nothing as if this means something. You're conveniently ignoring that over 61 million didn't protest at all.

Now you're claiming Iraq under Saddam was some beacon of civilisation? You are George Galloway and I claim my £5.

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

"Show me a war that wasn't illegal in some way and I'll give you my life savings".

OK. How about the war the USA fought against Japan, after Japan got its timing wrong and declared war after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Or any war fought against any aggressor.

"One minute you're criticising the US for dodgy tactics, the next you're saying it's ok for the Syrian government to use those tactics because the Americans do".

No. I started out by asking why the Western media are making such a big deal out of a relatively few civilians being killed in Syria, on the very dubious evidence of self-admitted enemies of the Syrian government, when those same media completely ignore far large numbers of civilians killed by our own governments.

I then moved on to criticizing the US and UK governments for committing the supreme international crime - according to the tribunal they themselves et up in 1945 - by launching unprovoked aggressive war and killing well over a million people.

Then I pointed out that Iraq was in far better shape under Saddam Hussein than it is now - so even the feeble excuse of expediency fails utterly.

2
3
Silver badge

Re: An accidental clue?

You mean the war where the US massacred 2 whole cities of an enemy that was already on it's knees?

"No. I started out by asking why the Western media are making such a big deal out of a relatively few civilians being killed in Syria, on the very dubious evidence of self-admitted enemies of the Syrian government, when those same media completely ignore far large numbers of civilians killed by our own governments."

You started by claiming that what we were being told about Syria isn't necessarily the whole truth which is fair enough. You then went off on a tirade about the US as if what's happening in Syria can be excused because America might be worse. The media doesn't ignore western atrocities, you even linked to their reports yourself.

Any country looks better before a war compared to immediately afterwards.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: An accidental clue?

"You mean the war where the US massacred 2 whole cities of an enemy that was already on it's knees? [sic]"

No, I mean the war where the USA more or less destroyed an entire civilization.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts153.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/After-five-years-of-U-S-occupation-Iraq-is-1267560.php

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/16/us_withdrawal_from_iraq_in_terms

If you want an example of a city that was utterly destroyed (on purpose), try Fallujah.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/11/iraq.rorymccarthy1

http://www.rememberfallujah.org/

1
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums