BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

[Catherina]

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.


The photograph was actually taken by Marco di Lauro in Iraq in 2003

Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw the image being used, and said he was “astonished” at the failure of the corporation to check their sources.

The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad.

It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”.

...

“What I am really astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn't check the sources and it's willing to publish any picture sent it by anyone: activist, citizen journalist or whatever. That's all.

He added he was less concerned about an apology or the use of image without consent, adding: “What is amazing it's that a news organization has a picture proving a massacre that happened yesterday in Syria and instead it's a picture that was taken in 2003 of a totally different massacre.

“Someone is using someone else's picture for propaganda on purpose.”

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html

and not the first time either, like the time they cropped a PRO-Ahmadinejad rally and pretended it was opposition. It's always the same, they'll be greeting us with flowers and candy.

BBC Botches Iranian Rally Caption: Large Crowd Photo of Supporters Mislabeled Protesters
By: Rhonda Roland Shearer
June 23, 2009 12:00 AM EST



BBC editors write, June 19, that they made a caption error two days before--that bloomed into controversy and accusations of biased coverage by bloggers who discovered the error.

BBC explains, "We made a mistake in a picture caption published on BBC News online. In the story Obama refuses to 'meddle' in Iran, we mistakenly stated that a Getty agency picture of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally was a pro-Mousavi rally."

...

BBC editors said they corrected the error and added an update. "Update 19 June 2009: an earlier version of our caption was incorrect. We wrongly stated that this was a pro-Mousavi rally when in fact it was a pro-Ahmadinejad rally." The new caption reads: "Tehran has seen mass demonstrations by all sides since the disputed election (see correction below)."

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/473/Bbc_botches_iranian_rally_caption__large_crowd_photo_of_supporters_mislabeled_protesters.php

[mike_c]

1. this is how the pro-war profits media supports the pro-war narrative...

...of the empire. How many people saw that photo and were horrified, outraged, and made ready for war? Propaganda at its best.

[Catherina]

2. That's the game. Pump up the outrage level and then retract when caught

but few people ever see the retraction. They get away with it over and over again.

[reformist2]

21. True. But I'm not sure 10 years is enough time. People still remember...

[Segami]

40. +1

So true!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. But, but but, RT is propaganda

I swear there are days.

[sabrina 1]

15. And the BBC is a reliable 'News Source' that is not a 'mouth piece of the government'

But RT, only in its third year of operation, has already received the prestigious Monte Carlo Award for its 24 hour news coverage, but, I am told, a small group of people here have taken it upon themselves to block it as a news source in LBN.

LBN has really taken a hit regarding its own credibility.

I make sure every day to let people know that there ARE reliable News Sources available now in the US such as RT. It is because of these sources who report the facts about all that is going on in the world, that are making it more and more difficult for the War Mongers to influence people to get behind yet another disastrous war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Well personally after hearing about the downtown mafia

in San Diego, (hardly reported by the local media), and after I got a string to pull (and I went HOLLEEE SHIITTT!!!!) I have widened my research to oh the other three major scandals in the last generation or so.

I can tell you that the same group will say we are trying to discount women's allegations of sexual harassment (the ammo in the latest case)

I have learned that most politically sophisticate individuals are hardly such and cannot think outside of a wet paper bag.

Does RT have an agenda? Yup. Show me a media outlet that does not.

[sabrina 1]

28. Well being that we are all adults I think we can discern when there is a bias in the news

RT's agenda, which is Left of Center for the most part, is more obvious in its Opinion programs, but it's News programming is pretty much straight news, the kind we used to get from the BBC and Al Jazeera before they sold out to get those oil deals.

Or maybe they didn't sell out. I always wondered why Qatar started that excellent news source right in the middle of the Neocon wars. They KNEW how it affected the Western attempts at propaganda, but persisted despite their reporters being constantly under attack, one of the killed and their headquarters bombed.

Then during the Libya debacle, Al Jazeera's reporting became very biased which was noted worldwide considering their record up to that point. As it turned out, it was true.

The Western powers were infuriated when all these Independent media outlets, Al Jazeera, Wikileaks, among others, sprang up JUST when they had finally gained control of OUR MEDIA.

People around the world continued to support Al Jazeera despite the attempt to make it a 'pariah'. As they will make even more of an effort to support RT now that it is clear they have become a target of the Western powers.

Then during the Libya conflict, they appeared to have betrayed their supporters. Showing so much bias it was remarkable.

It was puzzling. But maybe not. I read this week that Qatar wanted in on some oil deals but were not included. Until recently, which seems to have coincided with their biased news on Libya.

So, I am wondering if this was actual 'chess' on the part of Al Jazeera. They KNOW the Western Powers have finally gained control of the media and have no countering voices to stop them from selling their wars.

Could Qatar have started Al Jazeera to provide that counter, to use later as a bargaining chip? Hillary went to Congress for funding for the media (not sure why) a while ago and she told them that 'we are losing the message' due to what she termed as 'new, and GOOD News sources such as Al Jazeera and RT.

Now Al Jazeera has made some deals with the US and finally are broadcasting here, as is RT. But they have lost a huge amount of respect, and I know I will view them with great scepticism from now on as I will wonder if they were there for one purpose, until that purpose was achieved. Instead of bombing as Bush did, we now have hired them.

I will choose my own NEWS sources regardless of how they are censored here in the US.

Interesting what you have been finding out, Nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Well, I know that there is enough for a book

on this. I also know that there is no way we can have this published by any major publisher. Hey, blogs are good for that. And with plenty of links, have the usual suspects argue against that.

As to the state of the media. It is a temporary victory for the powers that be. They know that they need full and utter control of the web. I suspect the underweb is under development as I write. That be an alternate web. I have called it by the fictional name I gave it, but I am sure there are now alternate webs. Some are small, LAN sized, some probably cover more than that.

The parallels to cyberpunk are just down right scary.

[cprise]

4. I recall a number of such 'mistakes'

the BBC made over the years. Didn't they do the same with Libya?

[KittyWampus]

5. Your posting a link to "imediaethics" is unbelievably rich in irony.

[sabrina 1]

16. What's ironic is that they can't tell one of their massacres from the other anymore.

All those bodies, dead because of a bunch of a lying war criminals. Who are still roaming around, free in this country. The world this week pointed that out. It's good to see because here in the US you would think that no war crimes had ever been committed.

[malaise]

38. All those bodies, dead because of a bunch of a lying war criminals

+1,000








=

[MisterP]

6. did the same when the Wurlitzer faked a story about "Sandinista massacre of Miskitos" like '83

[malaise]

7. BBC is not what she once was - lots of government hacks have taken

over. No surprise here.

[BlueStreak]

32. BBC has been extremely right wing for awhile

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

My local public radio station goes to a BBC feed after midnight. These days they don't cover much of the news that affects US politics heavily. They have a solid 8 hours of covering gory atrocities in Africa and elsewhere. That seems to be absolutely the only thing they report, as if to say, "See, this is why things were better when the British Empire ran everything."

During the election cycle, it was a steady diet of anti-Obama and pro-Romney pieces.

Nearly as bad as Faux "news". I let my radio station know I wouldn't contribute any more money as long as this was the kind of programming they were going to offer.

[malaise]

37. The Guardian is my trusted source

Just check its ownership structure.

[Catherina]

34. I only read if if it shows up on my doorstep, otherwise I stick to RT & the Guardian as main sources

and some smaller, independent sources that are harder to rotate through. I really like the Guardian, but sometimes their news is very biased depending on who the reporter is. Rory Carroll's articles on Latin America are a disgrace. Papers like NYT, Wapo can be ok but they've been caught misreporting things too many times.

The BBC is awful. Their continued cover-up of the pedophilia scandals doesn't endear them to me either. Some of us tried to discuss this at DU but I guess we should have been louder about it. I had nightmares about what went on there.

Rot your fucking soul Jimmy. Handing over £4 million between 120 victims isn't going to make this go away.

[Roselma]

8. Conservatives are using that top photo of the shrouded

bodies in rows to claim that John Kerry referenced that specific photo in his speech the other day. He did not show nor did he reference that photo, but it is all over Facebook that he did. I pointed out that when Kerry referenced shrouded dead bodies in rows, it is altogether possible he was referencing photos from August 22/23 that were on such "respected" websites as the New York Times own website. I provided a link to the NY Times photo. That shut down one Facebook conversation and got an apology from a conservative to me for not having checked. No sooner had I gotten the apology, that same photo was posted by another conservative relative of mine. I went through the facts again, only this time, my nephew who had posted the false meme said that his pastor had showed the non-correct photo at church today. He said his pastor said that Kerry was lying about the chemical attack and was definitely talking about the 2003 photo. I posted the actual link to the NY Times photo of shrouded bodies from last week, but my nephew insisted that Kerry referenced the old photo. He knows for a fact that the photo referenced (yet never displayed by Kerry) was the one from 2003 not the one of the ones from last week. His pastor at church said so. Ugh.

[xfundy]

11. Better trust a pastor!

Christians are the good guys. Never lie, cheat or steal.

I wish I could make this huge>>

[truedelphi]

13. Of course there are many orgs and individuals skeptical of

just who it is that is responsible for the gas attacks.

And even if Syrian officials are responsible:

One) Our lobbing bombs could only "up" the toll on civilians.

Two: How do we have any moral authority and superior position to do this? Only by pretending we did not bring about My Lai, Abu Gharib, rendition, torture, phosphorous bombs, cluster bombs and Depleted uranium, can we assert some moral superiority allowing us to take the Syrian leader to task.

And here is an article explaining how our Main4ream Media is lame but devious:

http://intellihub.com/2013/08/29/cnn-correspondent-syria-exposed-actor-caught-multiple-lies/

[uponit7771]

9. "after it accidentally used a picture"

[Brickbat]

10. I missed the top photo the first time around. It's excellent.

[Heddi]

12. PRAPAGANDA!!!11!!eleventy!

RT EKWALS KREMLIN NO RUSSIA TIMES IS PROPAGANDA BBC = GOOD!11!

[sabrina 1]

18. I know. I was told the other night in that the BBC is a reliable news source and I pointed

out that it USED to be but is now a 'mouth piece of the British Government'. Since I have been told that this is the standard for 'breaking news', if a News Source is a 'mouth piece for its Government, it isn't a reliable source'.

I think DU needs to have a discussion about this issue, considering how important it is that we get real news.

RT is one of the best and most reliable News Sources available in the US right now. It is one of the most watched News Sources here in the US and around the world. But here on this democratic forum, a small group of people have declared it 'unreliable' while laughably, our Corporate Media and the BBC are 'reliable'. I won't be reading much in that forum. I like to get the truth, no matter how hard it is to take sometimes.

[Heddi]

23. bbbbut but but but

PROPAGANDS!!! KremlIN!11!

BBC = doubleplusgood independent no mistake

RT = EVIL KKKOMUNIST !11!

I agree with your desire to have more discussion on the issue. It was brought up in the hosts forum and the issue has been decided that RT is not suitable for LBN. Admin has stated that RT is not suitable for LBN. The issue has been settled by the powers that be, I suppose. There should be more input, but there won't be. It's a decided issue. Post a story in LBN with RT as the source and it will be locked. The idea being that if it's a REAL news story it will be found in other, more "suitable" news sources.

Suitable news sources like BBC, which is now and has in the past participated in the kind of nasty Propaganda that, well, that we'd expect from a Kremlin mouthpiece like RT, right?

Using photographs to furiously beat the war drum?

What's next...hearing about babies..BABIES...pulled from INCUBATORS and having their HEADS BASHED ON THE FLOOR by nasty people holding YELLOWCAKE ANTHRAX in their hands....

[sabrina 1]

25. Well, I won't be looking for news in LBN anymore, that's for sure. It has lost all

credibility as far as I am concerned. Thankfully we no longer have to rely on the MSM or people who have an agenda. RT IS a target of the PTBs, we knew that, I just didn't think we'd see it here.

Just as Al Jazeera was during the Bush years, but we Dems never caved into that kind of censorship and I know many of us donated to keep Al Jazeera in the forefront. I will now spread the word about RT as far as I can. In fact most people I know have already discovered it and have said to me 'OMG, I saw actual NEWS today'. Tune in to the corporate media and try to find news in the morning eg. I did that about a week ago and saw a 20 minute segment with a bunch of grown ups (news people? instructing the audience on how to use a new product to scoop out as much peanut butter from your jar as you can.

And THIS is a 'reliable News Source'?? For the MIC and Wall St., yes, it dumbs down America and distracts them from the news. Well, it used to.

And then I went over to RT and saw a roundup of news from all over the world. Africa, Europe, Australia, South America, and I thought 'before we were able to get these great new sources (we also now get CCTV which is on the same style as RT and Al Jazeera as it used to be) lots of actual news.

As a result of the people now having access to real news, even on the WEEKEND lol, they don't go to sleep on the weekend, people are so much more informed and as a result, far less willing to go along with all the propaganda we get on those 'reliable sources'.

This was a very bad decision but it doesn't matter, I go to several excellent news sources now, that weren't available during the Bush years, so won't be bothering with anything that smacks of censorship. We've had enough of that.

[Heddi]

26. I only get Over the Air TV (no cable)

and thankfully I am able to get RT, France News, and Japanese News. So between the 3 of them, and Democracy Now that comes on intermittently throughout the day on the public access channel, I'm pretty well set for "non mainstream news sources".

Amazing the things you never see show up on US-based or US-marketed news.

[sabrina 1]

30. Yes, we just got another excellent news source, CCTV. Lol, I am sure it too will be

targeted for censorship, making it all the more credible to most Americans who have watched the attacks on the News Media, the complete takeover of our own media and now the all out effort to destroy all Independent media.

Just as with Al Jazeera during the Bush years when they were under attack and called' 'a terrorist' organziation, RT will now be become a 'cause' for Americans and will become even more popular.

That's how these weak attempts to censor what Americans read usually work. We don't like censorship as a nation. I even have some of my Republican adversaries tuning in to RT lol! You never know, some actual facts might seep through amid their cries of 'commie, pinko, lieberal, propaganda'. Lol, I get such a kick out of the constant state of denial they are in.

[KoKo]

14. I've wondered if anyone has checked out the "You Tube Videos"

John Kerry mentioned that were all over "social media" for their accuracy.

Do we know if these videos were doctored in any way...? That they were at the actual locations shown...or were they from earlier incidents or other locations but, cobbled together to make it seem like the August 21'st incident was the most horrific. Could there be videos from Iraq mixed in that someone sloppily put on You Tube in a rush because they wanted the US take action?

I've not seen anything about anyone verifying them...but, I may have missed it.

The photo the BBC did isn't the first time this has happened as you know...and even if BBC said it was just sloppy that the photo from Iraq got in there, we know how much propaganda has floated about Irag and probably Afghanistan, also.

That's what upset me about Kerry's hyperbolic rants. He kept mentioning "and on Social Media." Why don't they have their own video that they can put out? How do we know where the videos came from and who shot them.

I truly believe that some kind of terrible thing went on over there that killed innocents but, the statistics of injured and dead have varied from the "Doctors without Borders" count to what Kerry revealed where the numbers almost doubled.

I'm hoping someone is checking since we have a bit of time now to have everything thoroughly vetted ...as much as can be.

[sabrina 1]

20. I was shocked when Cameron pointed to 'videos we have seen' also. I've seen videos

that 'prove' it was the 'rebels' on Utube, more of them actually than the ones both Kerry and Cameron are talking about.

So, if they are basing their 'proof' on Utube videos, then we should send ALL of them to Congress before they decide on this issue.

[Catherina]

36. Yeah I have videos of the rebels reading some declaration to blindfolded kids on their knees

and gunning them after they're done reading the verdict. Little kids.

What the world needs is an open UN session where all the evidence is laid out to the entire UN and the Syrian Government can answer its accusers. Then let the chips fall where they belong.

And let the UK explain why they were still selling the Syrian government nerve gas chemicals 10 months after the civil war began. Let's lay all the cards on the table and get some real answers.

[KoKo]

39. What if we find out lies were told. It will not be good for Obama or Dems..

The Aluminum Tubes and Yellow Cake got debunked but...it was too late even though there were huge protests all over the US and the World before the invasion.

It took awhile for the lies and disinfo of the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq to come out. The Statue of Saddam supposedly being taken down with great glee by Iraqi's and it turned out it was some of our own people on the ground who took it down. Jessica Lynch...so many other false stories that were pumped for Patriotism that were just disinfo or false.

I don't think we have enough time before the vote for all the evidence to be verified. And, it will backfire on our Administration and Dems if we do the rush to bomb. "After the Fact" shouldn't be allowed to happen again after the thousands or maybe millions who've died since we invaded Iraq and continued with Afghanistan and the rest on the PNAC List of "To Do" items.

[malletgirl02]

41. Truth Commission

I agree the UN needs some type of truth commission in regards to the civil war in Syria. Anyone who has been shown to have committed atrocities needs to be held into account no matter if they are the Assad regime or the rebels.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Kinda like when FOX "News" showed pictures from 92 of Iraq WMDs. The ones that were GONE.

[reformist2]

19. The neocons are getting lazy, sloppy.

[suffragette]

24. Lots of 'accidental' and 'unintended' errors these days, aren't there

At least that's what they call them if they're caught and called on the disinformation.
The drums of war are being hammered right now.

Thanks for the post, Catherina.

[Coyotl]

27. So much for BBC (BBS) articles appearing in LBN. Unreliable source!

[sabrina 1]

42. The BBC has been an unreliable source since the Bush supporting Blair government

cracked down on them and made it clear that they weren't happy with truthful reporting or 'whistle-blowers' being interviewed by their reporters proving there were no WMDs in Iraq.

I can't say I blame anyone for becoming fearful of telling the truth and if the people don't stand up for those who are targeted by these governments then we get what we deserve.

But the BBC today is not a reliable source on this issues, unlike it used to be before the crackdown on all Independent reporting which began under Bush and continues and will until the people refuse to accept it.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. The BBC has been caught doing this sort of thing...

... on too many previous occasions for it to be explained away -- it's dishonest reporting pure and simple.

[Catherina]

33. I used to have a folder of their trangressions on my old computer

They're not honest. They're mouthpieces of the British Empire just like our MSM is mouthpieces of the Corporate Empire.

[gopiscrap]

35. that's fucked up