Did World Press Photo give its photo of the year award to a doctored photo? WPP and the photographer, Paul Hansen, both insist no.

After Neil Krawetz claimed that Hansen’s image of Gaza mourners was a composite of several images, World Press Photo announced that it sent the image to two independent experts for analysis. The experts disagreed with Krawetz’s assessment of the image:

We have reviewed the RAW image, as supplied by World Press Photo, and the resulting published JPEG image. It is clear that the published photo was retouched with respect to both global and local color and tone. Beyond this, however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing. Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed . . .

Hansen also stood by his photo. He then explained to Anthony Sharwood how he processed the image. “Developing a file over itself” sounds a little dodgy, but I don’t understand any of this technical jargon:

“In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range.

“To put it simply, it’s the same file – developed over itself – the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them.”

For its part, Krawetz’s original post Extremetech has been updated several times responding to WPP’s experts.

Certain digital enhancements with light, color, and contrast are considered acceptable within the media industry.But at what point do the enhancements make the image dishonest?

This image of a Gaza funeral appeared in many media outlets. ExtremeTech now reports:

It turns out that the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year — the largest and most prestigious press photography award — was, in actual fact, a fake. The World Press Photo association hasn’t yet stripped the photographer, Paul Hansen, of the title, but presumably it’s just a matter of time. Rather than discussing the politics of photo manipulation, though — is it faked, or is it merely enhanced? — we’re going to look at how Hansen managed to trick a panel of experienced judges with his shooping skillz, and how a seasoned computer scientist spotted the fraudulent forgery from a mile off.

The photo, dubbed Gaza Burial, was purportedly captured on November 20, 2012 by Paul Hansen. Hansen was in Gaza City when Israeli forces retaliated in response to rocket fire from Palestinian rocket fire. The photo shows two of the casualties of the Israeli attack, carried to their funeral by their uncles. Now, the event itself isn’t a fake — there are lots of other photos online that show the children being carried through the streets of Gaza — but the photo itself is almost certainly a composite of three different photos, with various regions spliced together from each of the images, and then further manipulation to illuminate the mourners’ faces.

The remainder of the article reveals exactly how this was done.

There is no question that the funeral itself took place. But how many times have we seen the manipulation of images from the Middle East conflict?

In our Shattered Lens study of photo bias, we took a look at how the use of cropping and angles were used to create a dramatic perception of a funeral.

In general the study identified distortions of images that mostly fell into the following categories:

1. Deliberate Staging
2. Use of wide-angle lenses and photographer positions to make photos appear more dramatic than the reality
3. Photographers choosing positions that affect the events they are shooting
4. Editorializing in photo captions.

In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, manipulating photos to create a dramatic perception goes far beyond a simple touch up of a nature scene or the removal of red eye from a family portrait. Images are, arguably, more powerful than any headline or text in an article and leave a deep and lasting impression.

When it comes to reporting of Israel, those impressions are important in how the world views the country.

The World Press Photo Association should immediately revoke Paul Hansen’s award and demonstrate that unethical and unprofessional photography is unacceptable.

Looks like Newseum’s trying to climb down from a limb it went way out on. The Washington-based media museum announced that it’s reconsidering including two Hamas “journalists” in its memorial to reporters killed in action.

Serious questions have been raised as to whether two of the individuals included on our initial list of journalists who died covering the news this past year were truly journalists or whether they were engaged in terrorist activities.

We take the concerns raised about these two men seriously and have decided to re-evaluate their inclusion as journalists on our memorial wall pending further investigation.

Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception.

As HonestReporting already pointed out,  Mahmoud Al-Kumi and Hussam Salama were known Hamas operatives.

The Times of London (subscription only) publishes a story under the following headline:

The article explains:

A call for religious freedom in Jerusalem by Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU foreign policy chief, has been seized upon by extremist Jewish organisations and religious leaders as a statement of support for a controversial third temple on the hilltop in the Old City.

Yet, only two paragraphs later:

Now, some hardline groups are calling for Jews to be allowed to pray on the site they call the “holy of holies” and are interpreting a call for religious freedom in Jerusalem by Lady Ashton as tacit support for the right of Jews to pray at the site.

A representative of Lady Ashton said at the weekend: “It is essential that access to the holy sites in Jerusalem for peaceful worship for all denominations is fully respected.”

There are indeed demands that Jews should be allowed to worship on the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site as well as the religious belief that a third temple will arise in the future.

However, the article and the headline appear to be making a bold and dangerous presumption beyond the evidence provided in the article text itself.

Just how did a call for freedom of worship on the Temple Mount morph into a headline and claim surrounding the building of a third temple?

In what could be a significant turn of events the Jerusalem Post reports:

Not only was 12-year-old Gazan Muhammad al-Dura not killed by IDF fire in 2000 – he was not even hurt.

That was the preliminary finding of a special commit- tee formed several years ago by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and headed by Brig.- Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, the former head of the Research and Analysis Division of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, and the current director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry.

…

In the meantime, 13 years have passed, during which various and sundry conspiracy theories have been suggest- ed, including claims that the boy was never even injured.

A few days ago, MK Nachman Shai met with Ya’alon to give him a copy of his new book, Media War Reaching for Hearts and Minds , which deals with the role of media in current military conflicts, including the Dura affair. Ya’alon then surprised Shai by saying that an investigation carried out by Israel shows that Dura was never hurt.

This theory has been circulating on the Internet for a few years already, but this was the first time that an Israeli defense minister was stating so publicly.

Today, Dura should be about 25-years-old, alive and kicking somewhere (unless he was killed later in a separate incident).

Kuperwasser confirmed the committee’s conclusion that that Dura had not been hurt at all and that the video clip, which was filmed by France 2 TV and aired around the world, had indeed been staged. This means that the France 2 TV channel report was erroneous, perhaps even knowingly.

Kuperwasser added that the full results of the investigation would be ready in the near future, and that most of the work had already been completed.

To recall, Al-Dura was the “poster boy” of the so-called Second Intifada and the libel of Israeli responsibility for his death and the iconic imagery of the incident have had a major impact on subsequent events and Israel’s image in the media.

We believe that we must never give up trying to find out the truth, even 13 years after the incident, and the same applies to all of those times when Israel has been falsely accused in the media.

We look forward to seeing the full report in the near future and to see if the mainstream media and France 2 in particular, will finally acknowledge their part in propagating a libel.

For more on the Al-Dura case and other media libels, view our interactive Big Lies presentation.

On Monday, we asked you to send your complaints to the BBC over this headline:

We pointed out that the headline was taking Syrian propaganda at face value, making it appear as if Israel was associated with terrorists. The BBC has responded with a new headline and a correction:

Correction (7 May 2013): The headline of this report has been amended to make clear that the claim that Israeli air strikes had been co-ordinated with the rebels was made by Syrian officials.

While it is unfortunate that Syrian propaganda was deemed to be so newsworthy and we are still less than happy with the story itself, the updated headline is an improvement on the original.

The BBC may not always act on complaints in the way that we would like but your actions prove that they are listening. Together we can make a difference.

One way to measure media groupthink is to find out which papers  journalists are reading.

And for the second year in a row, the most widely read newspaper by the BBC staff is The Guardian, a left-wing paper with a declining print circulation and a regular contender for HonestReporting’s Dishonest Reporting Awards.  Heh. That sentence also describes the BBC.

The Commentator filed a Freedom of Information request to find out how much the publicly funded BBC spends on newspapers.

The news comes despite the continuing decline of the Guardian newspaper circulation amongst the general public. The paper, which openly declares its Left-wing editorial line, is one of the least read outlets in the United Kingdom, chalking up around 215,000 sales per day in 2012, compared with the Daily Telegraph’s 518,000.

Despite these statistics, the BBC continues to purchase more copies of The Guardian (68,307 copies) than both the Telegraph (57,763) and The Times (59,490) and manages to pick up 50,398 copies of The Independent over the course of a year, a paper which registered an average of just 75,802 sales per day so far this year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

The Commentator further questions why the Beeb increased its spending on newspapers by 17 percent when most UK papers continue to freely provide their content online.

Indeed, while The Guardian’s print circulation is indeed tumbling, the paper’s real influence comes from its online presence. Last year, it was the third most-read online paper in the world — 38,931,000  unique visitors, to be precise. (I’d like to know what percentage of the web site’s readers are from the UK.)

It’s old news that The Guardian and BBC are like-minded and out of touch with the British mainstream. But the Beeb’s also out of touch with the rest of the online world. If nearly 39 million Guardian fans are smart enough to read online for free, why can’t the BBC tighten its belt like the rest of us?

In response to HR’s critique of the BBC’s coverage of the fatal stabbing of an Israeli by a Palestinian terrorist, the BBC’s Middle East Desk has sent the following to one of our subscribers:

We used the word “settler” because it is, in the first instance, the word that most accurately and completely describes the victim of Tuesday’s attack. Obviously, lower down in the report, we give more detail on the victim.

“Israeli” is wrong here because it does not indicate that Eviatar Borovzky lived in the West Bank. Under international law, the West Bank is occupied territories and Israelis who live there are therefore settlers. This in no way mitigates or justifies an act of murder. We are, for a general international news audience, trying to be as clear as possible about who killed whom and where. All three leading international news agencies – Reuters, the Associated Press and AFP – used exactly the same phrasing us we did.

The Israeli English language news website Ynet used the word “settler” as we did in this context. The headline to a report on 30 April read: “Settlers throw stones, burn fields after terror attack.” It continued: “A few hours after a Palestinian terrorist murdered Jewish settler Eviatar Borovsky in the northern West Bank Tuesday morning, dozens of settlers hurled stones at Palestinian vehicles near the village of Hawara.” (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374261,00.html)

Several readers complained that we did not refer to the Palestinian attacker as an activist, militant or terrorist. We are not aware of anything that indicates that the attacker belonged to a political or armed Palestinian group.

Four observations:

1. Why should Eviatar’s Borovsky’s place of residence be the determining factor in identifying the victim of a terror attack?
2. The BBC is still unprepared to acknowledge that its interpretation of the status of settlements is but one interpretation of international law.
3. Since when did the BBC follow the lead of Israeli media outlets when it comes to terminology? While YNet referred to Borovsky as a settler (not in the headline referenced by the BBC however), the Jerusalem Post referred to an “Israeli man” in its headline, while The Times of Israel simply referred to an “Israeli.”
4. Since when did a terrorist have to be a paid up member of an organization before he is referred to as a terrorist? The Boston Marathon bombers were not claimed as members by any jihadist organization, yet were referred to as terrorists.

Sorry BBC – this response just isn’t good enough.

In the past few weeks, HonestReporting staff have been traveling around the globe running media bias workshops and speaking at community events to hundreds of people. Here are some of the highlights.

Spending Independence Day in the UK

HR Managing Editor Simon Plosker visited the UK as the guest of the Manchester Jewish community as part of their Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrations.

On the night of Yom Ha’atzmaut, Simon was the guest speaker at the joint seudah (festive meal) organized by the Stenecourt Synagogue and King David High School. Some 300 members of the community and students listened to Simon give a presentation on Israel’s performance vis a vis the international media during Operation Pillar of Defense and highlighted examples of the type of media bias seen during the military campaign.

Yom Ha'atzmaut at King David School

Cheadle Hulme's Jewish Society

The following day, Simon was the guest of the Jewish Society at Cheadle Hulme School, a prestigious private day school. 30 students, both Jewish and non-Jewish listened to a presentation on photo bias in the media, which was extremely well received.

“The session was really, really good…possibly the best ever.” – Louis Rawlings, Cheadle Hulme Jewish Society head.

Simon then traveled to Liverpool, where he was hosted by a supporter of HonestReporting who managed to fit over 50 people into his living room for a full presentation on media bias and the work of HonestReporting.

Addressing a crowd in Liverpool

An audience at Whitefield Synagogue

The following evening saw a return trip to Manchester to address the inaugural meeting of Whitefield Hebrew Congregation’s Friends of Israel group, which attracted some 150 people. This successful event was covered by the local Jewish Telegraph.

From Brazil to Boston

HR CEO Joe Hyams was welcomed back to the warm reception of the Sao Paulo community in Brazil, home to a growing number of supporters and activists for our global brand. Highlights of the trip included a presentation at the CIP Community Center to local organizational leaders. From the Al-Dura affair to more recent examples of media manipulation, Joe explored the categories of bias we all need to be on the lookout for, and how at a local level we can each play a role in responding effectively. A big ‘thank you’ to Mr and Mrs Kulikovsky for organizing this opportunity.

Joe Hyams addresses a crowd

Lauro Brand (R) of HR's Board of Directors, joins Joe with the current and former Officers of K-Space Sao Paulo

K-Space represents a growing network of meeting locations for young Jewish professionals. HonestReporting has had the opportunity to present to the Miami branch in the past and looks forward to future visits at the two new branches due to open later this year. At K-Space Joe engaged with the diverse and enthusiastic audience, focusing on visual and multimedia opportunities, as well as threats, in the fast paced digital news marketplace.

On behalf of all K Space Brazil, we were extremely honored by Joe’s visit. We had an enriching and inspiring experience and we hope to see you again!

Joe moved on to Boston where he presented to over 100 people as guest lecturer at Young Israel of Brookline. In the wake of the Marathon Bombings, Joe focused his lecture on mass medias role and responsibility in the wake of terror attacks. He shared his personal experiences following the 2005 London bombings, and described how he has seen Israeli society address and work through the psychological challenges in the wake of events that impact whole communities.

With thanks and appreciation to Peter Halmagyi, photographer, for his hard work throughout the trip. For all your photographic needs he can be contacted at: USA: +1(818) 625 4040; Web: www.PHphoto.us; E-mail: photohalm@yahoo.com

A Reuters report that appeared in media outlets including the Irish Times states:

Israeli soldiers evicted several hundred Bedouins from a village in the occupied West Bank today after the army declared the area a live-fire training zone.

We looked into this figure and were informed by military sources on the ground that some tens of Bedouins had been removed from their village. Not several hundred as Reuters would have you believe.

Where exactly did Reuters come up with this figure?

But not only that. Reuters failed to mention that the IDF is allowing the evictees to return to their homes following the conclusion of the one-week training exercise.

This is a crucial point that has been omitted along with any background over the legality of the Bedouin village.

While Reuters states that the village is located in what is known as “Area C” of the West Bank, it fails to elucidate the status the area’s status beyond that of being under full Israeli control. To expand, Area C is under full Israeli civil and military control, as agreed under the Oslo Accords. The Bedouin village of Wadi al-Maleh, where this eviction took place, has been illegally built on Israeli state land according to the terms of the Oslo agreements and is subject to a number of demolition orders.

Yet, despite this, the IDF is allowing the residents to return even in the knowledge that their presence there is illegal.

While clearly there may be readers who disagree with Israel’s presence in the West Bank, Reuters has produced a one-sided piece of reporting that does nothing to inform the readers of the facts behind the case and purposely sets out to portray the IDF is the worst light possible.

(H/T: Regavim)