Pajamas Media

62 Comments

1. Bugs:

Yep, flares alrighty. The term “firing a weapons system” makes me think the editor’s first language isn’t English – which of course makes me think he’s Palestinian or at least an Arab. It’s probably a combination of spin and ignorance. Sloppy journalism either way.

Jan 6, 2009 - 10:21 am 2. Cybergeezer:

Proof these pagans hide behind civilian shields and draw fire to civilian targets.
This is how they fight!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elyXQ6g-TJs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBYtij4Q7sE

Jan 6, 2009 - 10:24 am 3. Owen:

Someone has indeed learned a lesson, though not the one we would like them to have learned. Notice that the captions for these photos say “after firing a weapons system”. They’re trying to create plausible deniability for when someone calls them on it. In principle, these helicopters could have fired a weapons system, then fired flares, and then been photographed, and the captions would be correct. We have no evidence that this is what happened, but we cannot prove beyond any doubt that it didn’t, and that, sadly, may be enough for Reuters and its appologists to cling to it. Now, it’s quite clear that the intention of the captions is to make it seem like the flares are the weapons, but they can pretend otherwise. So I have to disagree with Bob on this one. They have indeed learned a lesson from the Lebannon case: when spreading propaganda, cover your rear end.

Jan 6, 2009 - 10:42 am 4. Reuters:

Meh. False but accurate….

Jan 6, 2009 - 10:42 am 5. pike:

even funnier was the footage on CNN, where the camera followed the slow descent of the flare to the ground, waiting for the inevitable incineration of a kindergarten…it hovered on the shot after the flare fizzled out before finally panning back to the sky. heh.

Jan 6, 2009 - 10:48 am 6. pst314:

Don’t these guys ever quit? They’ve been caught many times doing this.

Jan 6, 2009 - 10:52 am 7. FreddyB:

Does anyone seriously expect better coverage from Reuters/AP/CNN than “shiny bird make boom-boom?”

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:01 am 8. Anton:

pike:
My nineteen year-old daughter spotted that one, she asked me about it and said “Missles don’t float do they?” Maybe I can get her a job as the photo editor for Reuters. It has to pay better than her waitress job and I am sure the work isn’t very hard at all.

These people seem to suffer from a deficit learning curve; the more they are taught the less they know. I am surprised that they don’t refer to the flares as “passive incendiary devices”.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:19 am 9. The Historian:

FAR LEFT & HAMAS: ALLIED BY HATE
The political left will use any means to gain their doctrinaire ends.

http://www.greensrealworld.blogspot.com

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:19 am 10. jblog:

Well, I hate to defend Reuters, but it could be that you’re reading the captions too literally — it’s possible that the caption writer is not referring to the flares in the photos, but rather to ordnance the aircraft fired or dropped prior to the photo being snapped.

Granted the average reader might draw the conclusion you did, so at the very least Reuters is guilty of sloppiness and a lack of clarity.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:24 am 11. Jarhead91:

Do the news services ever hire veterans? If I ran a news service, I’d have a knowledgable Vet reviewing all this stuff before it went out with my company’s watermark on it.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:32 am 12. LarryD:

After what’s gone before, Reuters does not get the benefit of the doubt.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:36 am 13. Yawn:

I think jblog is probably on the right track, its SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) to drop flares after bomb runs or strafing attacks, especially jets. The attack choppers are more iffy, but it is seeming to me to be more of a lack of clarity and sloppiness/laziness.

That being said Reuters is still a mouthpiece for Hamas and I hope the IDF crushes them (Hamas, although having Reuters included would be fun) like the insects they are.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:39 am 14. Owen:

jblog:
That’s called plausible deniability. They’ve created a caption which has an excuse (the one you suggest), but that is rather clearly NOT the intended message. Captions are intended to describe what is being shown, and what is being shown is NOT a weapons system being fired. That’s why we see multiple flare photos captioned like this, rather than photos of the actual weapons being used. This is not simply sloppiness on the part of Reuters, it is deliberate propaganda with a touch of rear-end covering.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:53 am 15. rocketeer:

Jarhead91 – “Do the news services ever hire veterans?” The answer would be “No”. The news services know what the truth is in this conflict, as they do in any of the situations their reporters cover. They simply have an agenda that they are trying to inflict on all of us and have no use for the truth or the facts.

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:04 pm 16. Fred Beloit:

jblog and Yawn to a degree seem to be practicing ignorancial deniability. This happens when one does not read or ignores Comment 3. and so needlessly questions the truth of the post and attempts to defend the propagandists at Reuters. (Isn’t it also SOP to drop flares, perhaps automatically, when your ship detects a threat?)

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:11 pm 17. Andy:

Tell me, are you claiming that aircraft never release counter-measures or defensive systems AFTER deploying their weapons?

I don’t see anything in the caption that claims the flares being deployed are the weapons systems. It doesn’t say “deploying” – it says “AFTER deploying.”

Wouldn’t it be pretty standard to deploy counter-measures while leaving a battle site after deploying weapons?

Are you, in fact claiming that these are sight-seeing aircraft?

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:11 pm 18. Assistant Village Idiot:

rocketeer, well, they know what an uninformed person would think is the truth, but they have something Much More Sophisticated than mere truth that we should be told.

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:19 pm 19. Ron Coleman:

I have to say “false but accurate” may actually be right on this time.

These are warplanes. They’re using weapons — good, deadly ones. In this exact picture, at this exact moment? Probably not technically.

But, come on. The Israelis are, thank God, there on serious business: “Breaking things, killing people.”

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:24 pm 20. Evie:

The press report the truth? Has that even happened since Edward R Murrow?

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:25 pm 21. Chris B:

Just how much of the “news” out of Gaza is coming from western reporters… or Palestinian stringers & “producers”?

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:36 pm 22. ramsis:

i heard cnn refer to this Israeli tactic as “dropping flare bombs on Hamas”. Flare bombs?well at least they got the word flare right.

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:51 pm 23. sherlock:

“…I’d have a knowledgable Vet reviewing all this stuff before it went out with my company’s watermark on it.”

Now, how are you going to “change the world” THAT way? Sheeeesh!

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:51 pm 24. Frank:

Actually, Reuters is being misleading in the caption. It says “firing a weapons system” not “after firing a weapons system”.

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:52 pm 25. Jerry Dove:

I don’t think the Reuters caption writer knows this, but, technically, the caption may not be incorrect because maneuvering and employing self-protection (e.g., ECM, chaff, and flares) could be a tactic used after releasing weapons. Weapon release requires a stable platform, which increases vulnerability to threats on the ground and would lead to the use of counter countermeasures and an immediate escape maneuver. With only one picture, it’s difficult to assess what just happened.

Jan 6, 2009 - 1:05 pm 26. D:

I actually saw a clip where the ‘journalist’ talked about Israeli aircraft dropping “flare bombs”!!!

I had a good laugh over that, I probably should have been crying though.

Jan 6, 2009 - 1:32 pm 27. Peter the Sub Guy:

10. jblog wrote:
Well, I hate to defend Reuters, but it could be that you’re reading the captions too literally — it’s possible that the caption writer is not referring to the flares in the photos, but rather to ordnance the aircraft fired or dropped prior to the photo being snapped.

Peter responds: I could believe that excuse if it was a single photo. MAYBE (iffy) two photos. But when the same caption is used on at least four photos, all showing aircraft deploying flares, one has to believe the deception is intentional.

Jan 6, 2009 - 1:51 pm 28. therealist:

Good. I hope Reuters posts more pictures. The sooner that the American public realizes that they’re being fed leftist propaganda by their news agencies, the faster conservative media will grow. As Napoleon said, when your enemy is making a mistake, don’t interrupt him.

Jan 6, 2009 - 2:09 pm 29. cedarford:

Basically, the truth of this is aircraft engaged in offensive ops over the Gaza strip and raining bombs, missiles, and strafing cannon fire – DO occasionally use defensive flares.
The adjoining truth is that you don’t normally get good video of attack aircraft actually attacking…you don’t see much of actual ordnace delivery unless it comes from the government operating the attack vessel.

On the other hand, flares are much more visual and last far longer in vicinity of the attacking aircraft.

Jan 6, 2009 - 2:33 pm 30. Yawn:

Hey Fred, how many attack runs by aircraft have you ever seen in your life? I am asking because being a career Field Artillery soldier I can say I have seen a lot. Flares are always fired after a run. Flares are also dropped if in danger of attack from a guided (radar or heat seeking) missile. Last time I checked Hamas was rather short on either type (lets be honest if they had the ability to shoot down a chopper or a plane they would have tried long before now). Odds are those aircraft had done an attack run. Yes, they may not have and those flares may have been manually released for some reason (can’t think of why), but the point is I think that the odds favor this to be a case of sloppy writing and/or research. If you think I am defending Reuters in any way you are sorely mistaken. As I stated in the last sentence I think they are a mouthpeice for Hamas and I hope Hamas is crushed by the IDF. Maybe you are the one who needs to finish reading before commenting.

Jan 6, 2009 - 2:46 pm 31. Peter the Sub Guy:

29. cedarford wrote:
The adjoining truth is that you don’t normally get good video of attack aircraft actually attacking…you don’t see much of actual ordnace delivery unless it comes from the government operating the attack vessel.

Peter responds: Funny. I’ve seen plenty of pictures of warcraft firing weapons, actual missiles and guns, that didn’t come from the country whose warcraft they were.

Anyone else? Have the only pics you’ve seen of warcraft firing weapons come from the country to which they belong?

Jan 6, 2009 - 3:24 pm 32. Peter the Sub Guy:

30. Yawn:
Flares are always fired after a run. Flares are also dropped if in danger of attack from a guided (radar or heat seeking) missile. Last time I checked Hamas was rather short on either type (lets be honest if they had the ability to shoot down a chopper or a plane they would have tried long before now).

Peter asks: Hey, Yawn, if Hamas has no ability to shoot at the Israeli aircraft, then what is the point of using defensive ordinance? Isn’t it just a waste? Oh, wait, I know! The Israelis just want to provide dramatic shots for Reuters to take photos of!

Jan 6, 2009 - 3:26 pm 33. rdkn07:

I can’t believe this tripe…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5462298.ece

That’s what I get for clicking on random news…

Jan 6, 2009 - 3:33 pm 34. Mike:

Yawn’s right. It is common practice to drop flares in a high threat environment, which usually means low altitude for man portable heat seekers (which is all Hamas has). An F16 only comes down low to do damage, their useless for observation in an urban environment.. too fast. So its almost certain that he had just “deployed a weapon system”.

That being said, I think their choice of wording betrays two issues. First of all, they chose to refer to the weapons fire which wasn’t shown and ignored the defensive nature of the flair. So a more accurate and just as truethful statement would be “An Isreali fighter deploys defensive measures…” but that fails to label Isreal as the aggressor so that’s not going to work. The second is they fail to mention what kind of weapon was deployed. That leads me to believe that the writer just went through stock photos and probably want even on site. Wasn’t one of the quotes from the Yellow Journalism era “You provide the pictures and I’ll provide the war”. Their just being true to their heritage

Jan 6, 2009 - 3:47 pm 35. jblog:

“jblog and Yawn to a degree seem to be practicing ignorancial deniability. This happens when one does not read or ignores Comment 3. and so needlessly questions the truth of the post and attempts to defend the propagandists at Reuters. (Isn’t it also SOP to drop flares, perhaps automatically, when your ship detects a threat?)”

I’m not denying or defending anything — just calling it the way I see it. And as someone who has worked for and with the media for more than 20 years now — and is never shy about criticizing it for its lapses and faults — I’d say I might know a thing or two more about how it works than you do.

I don’t drink anybody’s Kool-aid, but apparently you do, Fred. Make sure you check under the bed for monsters tonight.

Jan 6, 2009 - 5:22 pm 36. Denny, Alaska:

Reuters is still in business? Who knew?

Jan 6, 2009 - 5:32 pm 37. Ann:

We’ve got a problem.

The MSM media is out to deceive for a list of self-serving, pandering reasons too well known to have to list.

Then, secondly, we’ve got a vast number of ignorant individuals who are willing to be deceived, and serve the purposes of the MSM who are serving the purposes of very bad people.

These photos and the Reuters presentation of them are actually a good iteration of what they did during the election:

1. Photos of airhead Bambi with mouthy Wife.
2. Captions referencing adoring crowds who are fainting around him.
3. Conclusion (on the part of those offering themselves for deception): this man would be a magnificent POTUS and leader of the free world.

48 monthly installments. Look what we’ve lived already, in the last 12 days, and he isn’t even President Hussein yet.

Jan 6, 2009 - 5:35 pm 38. thegre8_1:

Obama expressed his deep concern for civilians killed in Gaza. Where is his concern for the million Israeli civilians who have had 6000 rockets shot at them by Hamas?

Jan 6, 2009 - 6:09 pm 39. Typical:

Bugs got it exactly right in the first comment: “It’s probably a combination of spin and ignorance.” Doesn’t that basically sum up the Reuters and AP stringer business model?

Jan 6, 2009 - 6:50 pm 40. pst314:

“Do the news services ever hire veterans? The answer would be No.”

You’re mistaken; they do hire veterans–veteran Hamas and Hezbollah operatives.

Jan 6, 2009 - 7:28 pm 41. Jerry:

Let us understand that press coverage is biased for multiple reasons. Among the most compelling reasons to promote the Arab agenda is to maintain access to the battlefield and thus a salary check. Should any reporter accurately note the purposeful placement of civilians within harms’ way by Hamas, how long would they be working the scene. Also, there is the related issue of the personal fear that reporters experience when entering active battle zones. A consequence of that fear is the accurate judgment that distorting the reportage against Israel will bring no personal harm to the worker from the Israelis, but they might indeed find themselves carrying their heads if they actively sided with Israel and were within grabbing distance of Hamas.

Indeed, I view much of the opposition to Israel as being the result of the same mechanism. Criticizing Israel is simply a much safer ploy than criticizing Israel’s enemies.

Jan 6, 2009 - 9:15 pm 42. My2Cents:

The captions were probably reviewed and approved by their Reuter’s legal department, that’s why they read funny.

Technically flares are a (defensive) weapon system / munition, so they probably figure that they butts are covered if anyone tries to sue.

Jan 6, 2009 - 11:56 pm 43. John D:

Well, the truth of the matter is that we don’t know what those aircraft were doing just before the pictures were taken.

So Reuters could just as easily said “Israeli aircraft flying over Gaza after deploying Zionist Jew-rays on innocent Palestinian children.” Though that might have been a little too obviouse even for them.

Jan 7, 2009 - 4:21 am 44. Ursa Major:

Personally, I get all of my news coverage of this conflict from Little Green Footballs. Charles is the only one who gets it right. NBC’s Richard Engle is a pathetic excuse for a reporter.

Jan 7, 2009 - 6:08 am 45. Mabus:

For those of you theorizing that they’re talking about weapons fired before the pictures were taken:

It’s too hard to tell in the last two pictures, but in the first two both aircraft are still carrying their full loadout. The F-16 appears to be carrying four MK-82 unguided bombs, with no visable empty pylons. The Apache is clearly carry two racks of Hellfire missiles, one on each outboard pylon, and what apear to be external fuel tanks on both inboard pylons.

As for the term ‘a weapon system,’ I don’t think that’s because the writer has a poor understanding of English. They probably have no idea what they’re talking about, and are trying to sound like they know more then they do.

Jan 7, 2009 - 6:34 am 46. Andrew Ian Dodge:

They aren’t called al Reuters for nothing you know. Reuters is even more in the tank for the Palestinians than the BBC.

Jan 7, 2009 - 7:18 am 47. Fred Beloit:

Owen in Comment 3. said: “Someone has indeed learned a lesson, though not the one we would like them to have learned. Notice that the captions for these photos say “after firing a weapons system”. They’re trying to create plausible deniability for when someone calls them on it. In principle, these helicopters could have fired a weapons system, then fired flares, and then been photographed, and the captions would be correct.”

jblog in Comment 10. said (adding nothing new): “Well, I hate to defend Reuters, but it could be that you’re reading the captions too literally — it’s possible that the caption writer is not referring to the flares in the photos, but rather to ordnance the aircraft fired or dropped prior to the photo being snapped.”

Yawn (thank you for your service, I was a 1542 for a couple of years) in Comment 13. said: “I think jblog is probably on the right track, its SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) to drop flares after bomb runs or strafing attacks, especially jets. The attack choppers are more iffy, but it is seeming to me to be more of a lack of clarity and sloppiness/laziness.”

I said in Comment 16. “jblog and Yawn to a degree seem to be practicing ignorancial deniability. This happens when one does not read or ignores Comment 3. and so needlessly questions the truth of the post and attempts to defend the propagandists at Reuters. (Isn’t it also SOP to drop flares, perhaps automatically, when your ship detects a threat?)”

Duh.
Western big media would be more fair if it had at the end of the caption a phrase that said, “Photo and caption by enemy journalist”.

Jan 7, 2009 - 7:27 am 48. Cybergeezer:

Here’s an article on daily life in Israel; And just for fun, go through the article and replace Israel and it’s towns with your own, and Netanyahu’s name with your governor or mayor.
Does that make a difference?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128827234659279.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Jan 7, 2009 - 8:09 am 49. Bill R.:

I like the false, but accurate statement. Yes, both aircraft are firing a weapons system. Flares are a defensive weapons system, designed to keep heat seekers from targeting them. I would imagine they are on the way to or from firing offensive weapons systems. So…if Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel, there would be grounds for peace talks.

Jan 7, 2009 - 9:43 am 50. John Evans:

As far as I am aware, Reuters is owned by the Rothchildes, the very people who began Israel. You are dealing with extremely deceptive people.

Jan 7, 2009 - 11:20 am 51. CMP:

“Trained” journalists practice a kind of wilful ignorance to avoid inserting incorrect information or editorializing in copy. Photographers tend to state the most obvious information about their shots in accordance with this, again to avoid possibly inserting incorrect info or editorialising. It makes for a lot of useless and dubious copy, and they often err to far on the side of such caution to the opposite effect, which I suspect is the case with these shots.
That said, when they do insert errors or editorial spin into copy, they tend to be caught, and photographers especially can be spanked for it. I personally have known one photog now working in the Mideast who I suspect was reassigned for inserting the Palestinian line into some of his cutlines, and for allowing himself to be expoited in staged situations (think “Green Helmet Guy”).
That said, there are those who buy into or operate under strong biases, if not, in the case of Gaza and Israel under outright intimidation, and Reuters is a prime offender in this respect.

Jan 7, 2009 - 12:30 pm 52. Old Country Boy:

Actually, what the Apaches and F16s had deployed were the super secret, but much available, anti-mosque self guided bomb. No matter where it is released, it finds a mosque, hospital or school to destroy. If none of those are in range, it hits the nearest concentration of children and women.

Jan 7, 2009 - 1:25 pm 53. JP49:

It turns out that Hamas wired to UN school to blow up. Now I’m wondering how long it will take our own news media to report the truth. They sure didn’t during the primaries and their still not reporting the truth. I have been boycotting them since the beginning of 2008 when I realized it was hopeless to hear any truth. Fox I watch but even O’Reilly seems lax when it comes to Obama. I believe the opportunity was missed purposefully for him to provide a real birth certificate to show that he is a natural born citizen of the USA. I don’t believe he will do what all the hype hopes he will. I think he will placate to the Arabs as so many other countries have done or are still doing. Britain and France are gone forever. I read today that in Denmark the headmasters of the schools do not want Jewish children enrolled anymore. If this war with Hamas is not won by the Israelis then I think we will witness a second Holocaust. Ours will soon follow. We have an Arab who is in the process of obtaining US citizenship threatening the USA on Egyptian television. Can we wake this country up soon enough.

Jan 7, 2009 - 5:28 pm 54. Adrian Monck:

You make a serious point, why not make it under a serious headline? Reuters is not in the service of Hamas, but photo captions can mislead and more effort should be made to make them clearer.

Jan 8, 2009 - 5:00 am 55. bill-tb:

They, Rooters, are just exploiting what Obama did. The world is full of stupid people, just convert them to voters and your home free.

Isn’t Rooters owned by a terror state?

Jan 8, 2009 - 5:12 am 56. Matt in VA:

Not every day you can hold up the AP as an example of GOOD journalism, but compare their caption here: http://www.daylife.com/photo/0daA4j6eSe9z5/gaza

Jan 8, 2009 - 1:22 pm 57. Cybergeezer:

The “drive-by media” is becoming the “click-by media”. Revenue is down because of their contrived and one sided “news”, so they are using their money for photoshop and publishing software.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:37 am 58. Fresh Air:

Bob–

What you have to realize is that wire services generally employ NO editing between the photo and the wire. Photographers can move photos onto the wire without supervision. This includes cropping, Photoshopping, captioning and titling. My guess is you’ve got a typical dishonest Palestinian/Arab stringer type who shot the photos and put them up. The morons at Reuters are too dumb to know his captions are wrong…and too biased to care.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:37 am 59. Fred Beloit:

The AP said this in the caption that Matt linked to: “Israeli forces pounded Gaza Strip houses, mosques and tunnels Monday from the air, land and sea, killing at least seven children and six other civilians, as they consolidated a bruising offensive against Palestinian militants.” A)Who says so? B)This is odd. No Hamas casualties? Guess Gaza civilians are all anti-Hamas.
Conclusion: AP = Reuters.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:41 am 60. AnninCA:

I betcha Joe the Plumber figures out weapons faster than some of the professionals.

Jan 10, 2009 - 6:29 am 61. Rubicon:

Whether you call it fake but accurate or willful ignorance or biased reporting, the intent appears to me to be a desire to make any Israeli jet or helicopter flight look like it was an offensive attack mission & people were going to die. Perhaps the point of the “journalists” was to make Israel look like they were mounting all sorts of military attacks?
In the final analysis, most of the public will not ask the questions many here are asking. That means, Reuters accomplished their mission of creating the impression the Israeli’s were mounting attacks. So long as no one seriously questions Reuters or those questions do not make it to the old establishment media newsdesks, then Reuters has once again accomplished their mission of making it look like Israel is using state of the art advanced weaponry against a “civilian” (sic) population who only possess bows & arrows. I have not heard or heard of any of the newsdesks making any mention or questioning the photo’s.
That media are not factually reporting so they can maintain contact or access to the situation, is deplorable. Seems to me, CNN did this w/ Saddam. They did not want to report what was really happening because he would have canceled their credentials to work in the battle zones or countries. That is what bothers me as well. That means, media will only be able to report one side of the affair, because one of the sides controls content. Its like allowing terrorists & despots to become editors.

Jan 11, 2009 - 10:32 pm 62. georgiebhoy:

26. D:

I actually saw a clip where the ‘journalist’ talked about Israeli aircraft dropping “flare bombs”!!!

I had a good laugh over that, I probably should have been crying though.

Jan 6, 2009 – 1:32 pm

Yeah maybe you should. Look at those terrorists run!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/middle_east_enl_1232192717/img/1.jpg

Jan 21, 2009 - 11:01 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: