BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

Daithi 1

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”.

The caption states the photograph was provided by an activist and cannot be independently verified, but says it is “believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial”.

A BBC spokesman said the image has now been taken down.

http://i.imgur.com/jGdzJ.jpg

martingriff

I would say that since foreign reporters are not allowed in the BBC wanted to show a disturbing picture and used 1 on file. Terrible descision to used it and also the captions. Dont think its a conspiracy just stupid news reporting. What conspiracy OP do you think is been done here

Daithi 1

Using shocking images to gain public support for NATO strike...

martingriff

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Using shocking images to gain public support for NATO strike...

Images like that wont gain support for a NATO strike plus if NATO want to do it they had all the support before now. The UN and NATO all look like fools sitting around with peace deals at times when they know they are not working hoping to push it on the long finger and someone else will do it and take the peoples anger when it goes wrong eg. the US

Daithi 1

Yet, it is what it is.
They did it in Libya and now Syria. Was dodgy when they reported building 7 had collapsed prior to it's collapse and they behaved as if they had prior knowledge of 7/7.

It's all a little to coincidental to me. Your entitled to your opinion tho.

humanji

Well a lot of governments are showing reluctance to invade Syria as it hasn't worked any other time they've done it, and with the upcoming elections, the US wouldn't bother.

It seems to be a simple mistake. There was an article about how the BBC used a logo from the computer game Halo, thinking it was the logo for the UN Security Council, or something like that. There was a massacre in Syria, which isn't debated by the Syrian government or the rebels. Like most news agencies, the BBC wanted to get the story out as fast as possible and didn't check all their facts (like most news agencies).

It serves little purpose to try and drum up support for an invasion by showing these kinds of pictures, because people don't care. There's a recession on and people are worried about their own jobs and homes. What happens in a country that most people can't even locate on a map, is of no consequence to them.

Daithi 1

They put the picture out knowing it may not be genuine, stating "it could not be independently verified." That's no mistake. While it may not matter if the people support UN intervention, it would certainly make it easier for the UN if all people have in their heads when they think of Syria is rows and rows of dead bodies lined up. This kind of propaganda is irreversible and the BBC are in the clear, again. Ah well...

humanji

My chocolate bar has a notice on it saying "May contain nuts". It's not a conspiracy, it's an honest declaration that they can't know for sure. There's an assumption that there's no nuts in it, but they are making sure that they're not liable if they're wrong. Same thing with the photo. It was assumed to be genuine and they were wrong.

And you have to remember that in Syria there are rows and rows of dead bodies. So even though the photo was the wrong one, it doesn't diminish the fact that a lot of civilians have been massacred. Putting up a photo and then admitting it's the wrong one goes against the horrors of what is happening. It makes people think that maybe it's not.

enno99

humanji wrote: »

Well a lot of governments are showing reluctance to invade Syria as it hasn't worked any other time they've done it, and with the upcoming elections, the US wouldn't bother.

It seems to be a simple mistake. There was an article about how the BBC used a logo from the computer game Halo, thinking it was the logo for the UN Security Council, or something like that. There was a massacre in Syria, which isn't debated by the Syrian government or the rebels. Like most news agencies, the BBC wanted to get the story out as fast as possible and didn't check all their facts (like most news agencies).

It serves little purpose to try and drum up support for an invasion by showing these kinds of pictures, because people don't care. There's a recession on and people are worried about their own jobs and homes. What happens in a country that most people can't even locate on a map, is of no consequence to them.

what did you base this on ?

Do you think Syrians care ?

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

My chocolate bar has a notice on it saying "May contain nuts". It's not a conspiracy, it's an honest declaration that they can't know for sure. There's an assumption that there's no nuts in it, but they are making sure that they're not liable if they're wrong. Same thing with the photo. It was assumed to be genuine and they were wrong.

And you have to remember that in Syria there are rows and rows of dead bodies. So even though the photo was the wrong one, it doesn't diminish the fact that a lot of civilians have been massacred. Putting up a photo and then admitting it's the wrong one goes against the horrors of what is happening. It makes people think that maybe it's not.

You caution me for posting propaganda images. A picture says a 1000 words, there is a lot more than 66 dead bodies in that image,

This is blatant propaganda and was deliberately chosen to try and make the massacre look far worse than it actually was. I already mentioned on a similar thread in AH that I believe this atrocity had all the hallmarks of a Zionist orchestrated false flag attack by NATO backed guerrillas to discredit the Syrian government and justify "peace keeping" action in their quest to take over this country.

hooradiation

Mistakes happen.

studiorat

hooradiation wrote: »

Mistakes happen.

No mistake, hidden messages to all United Nations Space Cadets. You saw it here first!

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

They put the picture out knowing it may not be genuine, stating "it could not be independently verified." That's no mistake. l

It's most likely a mistake or just someone doing a bad job. Many reports from Syria carry disclaimers because information is often difficult to verify.

hooradiation

studiorat wrote: »

No mistake, hidden messages to all United Nations Space Cadets. You saw it here first!

I'm signing up for the ODST myself

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

Mistakes happen.

The live reporting of building 7 collapse 20 minutes prematurely is another classic BBC "mistake"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The live reporting of building 7 collapse 20 minutes prematurely is another classic BBC "mistake"

The word mistake being put in quotes implies that it wasn't a mistake - which is a puzzling point of view to hold.

Daithi 1

humanji wrote: »

And you have to remember that in Syria there are rows and rows of dead bodies. So even though the photo was the wrong one, it doesn't diminish the fact that a lot of civilians have been massacred. Putting up a photo and then admitting it's the wrong one goes against the horrors of what is happening. It makes people think that maybe it's not.

Yeah, When they are caught with their pants down. You gotta wonder how often they're not caught making happy 'mistakes'..
Most people know better than to believe half the bullshyte in the average newspaper. And when some actual bullshyte is revealed to be just that, people say it was a genuine accident on the half of the newspaper that is to be believed.
Pretty funny !

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

The word mistake being put in quotes implies that it wasn't a mistake - which is a puzzling point of view to hold.

its a perfect example of the BBC being handed a story on a plate well in advance of a situation.

Was the BBC handed this Iraq clip art or did they do an image search themselves? I would believe that they were told to put it up in the hope that it wouldn't be discovered.

humanji

enno99 wrote: »

what did you base this on ?

Do you think Syrians care ?

The majority of humanity doesn't care. They have other things to worry about. This is a simple, sad fact. It would be great if we were all altruistic and did our utmost to help out our fellow man, but that's not human nature.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You caution me for posting propaganda images. A picture says a 1000 words, there is a lot more than 66 dead bodies in that image,

No, you were cautioned because you were using propaganda photos instead of discussing points.

This is blatant propaganda and was deliberately chosen to try and make the massacre look far worse than it actually was. I already mentioned on a similar thread in AH that I believe this atrocity had all the hallmarks of a Zionist orchestrated false flag attack by NATO backed guerrillas to discredit the Syrian government and justify "peace keeping" action in their quest to take over this country.

Far worse? Over a hundred people were killed, almost half of which were children. If people aren't shocked at that, then a photo of what looks like shopping bags in a large room isn't going to sway their opinion.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah, When they are caught with their pants down. You gotta wonder how often they're not caught making happy 'mistakes'..
Most people know better than to believe half the bullshyte in the average newspaper. And when some actual bullshyte is revealed to be just that, people say it was a genuine accident on the half of the newspaper that is to be believed.
Pretty funny !

They are caught out making happy mistakes. There isn't much call to bring them up on conspiracy theory forums. People don't use these happy mistakes as apparent evidence that everything in the world is a lie.

And the US invaded Afghanistan when the world was against it.
The US invaded Iraq when the world was against it.
The Us invaded Lybia when the world was against it.
Now the US needs the BBC to post a photo of a massacre in place of a photo of a massacre because that's the only way to drum up support for an invasion when the world it against it?

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

its a perfect example of the BBC being handed a story on a plate well in advance of a situation.

Is it? Or is it an example of on site reporting during a major event being chaotic?

And how "perfect" is it if they're supposedly handed this story on a plate (to use your cliché) and then make such a basic mistake as to broadcast it early?
Are we to hold the view that the BBC don't make mistakes, except that they do?

And why is the concept of human fallibility so absent in the list of possible explanations for things like this, except that every alternative explanation hinges on people being fallible?
How do you reconcile that?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Was the BBC handed this Iraq clip art or did they do an image search themselves? I would believe that they were told to put it up in the hope that it wouldn't be discovered.

If we are to believe that the BBC don't make mistakes, but do as they are told, then who do you imagine told them to put the fictional UNSC logo in a news bulletin?

studiorat

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah, When they are caught with their pants down. You gotta wonder how often they're not caught making happy 'mistakes'..
Most people know better than to believe half the bullshyte in the average newspaper. And when some actual bullshyte is revealed to be just that, people say it was a genuine accident on the half of the newspaper that is to be believed.
Pretty funny !

The photograph is wrong. So what?
Are you suggesting there wasn't over 100 civilians killed?

Daithi 1

studiorat wrote: »

The photograph is wrong. So what?
Are you suggesting there wasn't over 100 civilians killed?

nope, r u ?

Daithi 1

humanji wrote: »

And the US invaded Afghanistan when the world was against it.
The US invaded Iraq when the world was against it.
The Us invaded Lybia when the world was against it.
Now the US needs the BBC to post a photo of a massacre in place of a photo of a massacre because that's the only way to drum up support for an invasion when the world it against it?

It, at the very least shows their willingness to 'get it wrong' when supporting a particular agenda. And they do seem to get it wrong in the same fashion every time. Always in a war thorn Country, invasion possibly on the cards. And the usual excuse.. difficult to get info in and out of the Country etc etc..

humanji

So what was their reason for popping the Halo logo up instead of the UN logo? Can't imagine that helped their propaganda machine.

Daithi 1

I'm afraid, even I don't have all the answers hu :P

studiorat

So at least 90 confirmed victims killed, mostly civilians shot in their homes and about 30 young children. And poor old Dathi is getting his knickers in a twist about the wrong photo which was clearly unverified and stated so quite clearly.

Using shocking images to gain public support for NATO strike...

He seems to think NATO have something to do with it. NATO isn't even mentioned in the report and no one is accused of the atrocity. Seems to me the BBC aren't the only ones making stuff up!

@ Dathi did you actually read the article or are you just excited about the photograph?

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You caution me for posting propaganda images. A picture says a 1000 words, there is a lot more than 66 dead bodies in that image,

This is blatant propaganda and was deliberately chosen to try and make the massacre look far worse than it actually was. I already mentioned on a similar thread in AH that I believe this atrocity had all the hallmarks of a Zionist orchestrated false flag attack by NATO backed guerrillas to discredit the Syrian government and justify "peace keeping" action in their quest to take over this country.

Lol I love the irony.

I wonder why it's ok for you to use dishonest and deliberate propaganda, but when you think that a government is using it, it's an evil act.

Daithi 1

studiorat wrote: »

So at least 90 confirmed victims killed, mostly civilians shot in their homes and about 30 young children. And poor old Dathi is getting his knickers in a twist about the wrong photo which was clearly unverified and stated so quite clearly.



He seems to think NATO have something to do with it. NATO isn't even mentioned in the report and no one is accused of the atrocity. Seems to me the BBC aren't the only ones making stuff up!

@ Dathi did you actually read the article or are you just excited about the photograph?

So at least 90 confirmed victims killed, mostly civilians shot in their homes and about 30 young children. And poor old Studio Rat is getting his knickers in a twist about Daithi 1 getting his knickers in a twist about the wrong photo which was clearly unverified and stated so quite clearly.



He seems to think that Daithi 1 seems to think NATO have something to do with it. NATO isn't even mentioned in the report and no one is accused of the atrocity. Seems to me the BBC aren't the only ones making stuff up!

duh !

humanji

There's no need to be childish, people

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

its a perfect example of the BBC being handed a story on a plate well in advance of a situation.

Lets examine the WTC 7 BBC report for a brief moment..

Entertaining the notion that it was an inside job, why would the powers-that-be, who incidentally intended to commit very serious mass murder and treason under a huge cloak-and-dagger operation, hand this secret information to a media organisation?

Why would they give away their secret plans if the building was going to be blown up anyway and media institutions would have reported it anyway?

I would like an explanation as I have seen this crop up more than a few times.

Back on topic, the media in general make mistakes all the time, just look at any youtube news blooper reel.

superluck

25,000 people in the world die of starvation every single day but citizens of the EU and US think their governments care about some Syrians.

Jonny7

superluck wrote: »

25,000 people in the world die of starvation every single day but citizens of the EU and US think their governments care about some Syrians.

This is why international aid agencies and charities and NGO's exist, to try and help this problem, again, more could be done to combat it, but then again more could be done about Syria.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Lets examine the WTC 7 BBC report for a brief moment..

Entertaining the notion that it was an inside job, why would the powers-that-be, who incidentally intended to commit very serious mass murder and treason under a huge cloak-and-dagger operation, hand this secret information to a media organisation?

Why would they give away their secret plans if the building was going to be blown up anyway and media institutions would have reported it anyway?

I would like an explanation as I have seen this crop up more than a few times.

Back on topic, the media in general make mistakes all the time, just look at any youtube news blooper reel.

Why was the BBC even talking about building 7?

It was perfectly OK during the interview 20 minutes later it falls down. Definitively information was passed on to the BBC by some "agent" that knew about its faith but got the timing wrong. Probably the same "agent" that slipped the BBC these current controversial images.

superluck

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is why international aid agencies and charities and NGO's exist, to try and help this problem, again, more could be done to combat it, but then again more could be done about Syria.

2000 Yemenis have been killed since March this year, shouldn't the news be reporting about that?

Any clues as to why they're not talking about a UN resolution there?

And what's the point of a UN resolution anyway since Israel violates every single one against it?

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why was the BBC even talking about building 7?

It was perfectly OK during the interview 20 minutes later it falls down. Definitively information was passed on to the BBC by some "agent" that knew about its faith but got the timing wrong. Probably the same "agent" that slipped the BBC these current controversial images.

1. Why would some "agent" need to pass information to the BBC about the building falling down?

2. If a myriad of news agencies and reporters are already on the scene why would an "agent" be needed to specifically pass information to one select news outlet?

Jonny7

superluck wrote: »

2000 Yemenis have been killed since March this year, shouldn't the news be reporting about that?

I have no idea which outlets/media you read/watch but it has very much been in the news.

Any clues as to why they're not talking about a UN resolution there?

Because an election has taken place there. Saleh is out of power.

And what's the point of a UN resolution anyway since Israel violates every single one against it?

And what's the point of discussion about anything in the world if the US/Israel will constantly be dragged in as scapegoats. I wouldn't mind if you attempted to at least apply the same standards to all countries but it seems you don't.

al28283

hooradiation wrote: »

Is it? Or is it an example of on site reporting during a major event being chaotic?

The very idea that the US orchestrated and carried out 9/11 and then handed out details of it to news agencies beforehand is ridiculous.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

1. Why would some "agent" need to pass information to the BBC about the building falling down?

Plenty of reasons, 9/11 was a major "terrorist" spectacular and pulling it would not have been complete without the proper media attention.

Jonny7 wrote: »

2. If a myriad of news agencies and reporters are already on the scene why would an "agent" be needed to specifically pass information to one select news outlet?

The BBC is one credible news source that would have a guaranteed captive audience of hundreds of millions particularly this side of the Atlantic and also much of their reporting would have been passed on to other agencies. I'm sure after this major blunder this was quickly disposed of.

humanji

So you think there was the possibility that if they weren't in on it, they wouldn't cover the largest terrorist attack in human history?

al28283

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Plenty of reasons, 9/11 was a major "terrorist" spectacular and pulling it would not have been complete without the proper media attention.

Yes, that's the one thing 9/11 didn't have, media attention

Run_to_da_hills

al28283 wrote: »

Yes, that's the one thing 9/11 didn't have, media attention

Apart from selected media attention like the BBC..

studiorat

superluck wrote: »

2000 Yemenis have been killed since March this year, shouldn't the news be reporting about that?

I presume that's a genuine mistake and not an attempt at spreading propaganda for the shadowy elites.

http://www.thejournal.ie/yemen-says-more-than-2000-killed-in-uprising-389284-Mar2012/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/yemen-says-more-than-2000-killed-in-uprising/2012/03/18/gIQAGOtcLS_story.html

Yemeni human rights reported 2,000 dead in the past year, in March. But there you go, that's how these things happen.

It reminds me of a friend who lost their job for going on the radio and reporting that a certain TD was dead! The story comes in, in the middle of the night when the only staff on the news desk are invariably young and inexperienced. Not even the great BBC will pay their senior staff to work through the night. So our junior news hound faces the choice of running the story or waiting to ask their editor when he comes in in the morning. If the wait they risk not being first with the story and getting a bollocking from their boss. If they don't they risk a bollocking for running a dud story. You can bet this is what happened in case of the picture.

Thing is, people have become so accustomed to believing what the read they refuse to believe the person "in authority" who provides the story could be wrong. And so they would rather believe that the "authority" has in fact nefarious intentions. This way the "authority" is still in control and the reader is still safe.

superluck wrote: »

Any clues as to why they're not talking about a UN resolution there?

Possibly because no one bothered to find out if there was one or not. There was, resolution 2014...

superluck wrote: »

And what's the point of a UN resolution anyway since Israel violates every single one against it?

A UN resolution in most cases is an simply an official point of view. Generally they aren't binding, as there is no enforcement mechanism.
Resolutions under "chapter 7" refer to crimes against peace and were put in place to stop UN nations going to war with each other, pretty much to cover the shortfalls of the League of Nations. I don't know how many if any of Israel's resolutions were under chapter 7.

The irony is, Israel was formed by a UN resolution. To deny it's legitimacy is denying the same resolutions charged against it and vice versa. One can't exist with the other. It's also by way of a UN resolution that Israel uses to continue it's policy in Palestine. Nowt stranger than folk I suppose.

superluck

Studiorat, you and every other poster that comes on here to complain about deaths in Syria while turning a blind eye to deaths in other countries either directly or indirectly at the hands of EU/US governments are nothing but hypocrites, that's all.

humanji

Where are they turning a blind eye?

golden lane

who, watches the news and expects the facts.........that went out years ago, the news is for to give good jobs to newspeople...

if anybody on boards is not happy about they see.....go to syria or yemen, i'm sure they will give you a gun...

RoboClam

Off topic posts deleted. Guys, stop insulting each other

superluck

Approx. 150 million people worldwide die of starvation every year but NATO cares about the poor brown people in Syria...at least that's what I'm being told by the intellectuals of Ireland.

NATO care so much about these brown peasants that they will sponser thugs to go shooting them.

No doubt if NATO do start bombing and kill some civilians, they'll call it "collateral damage"

Stupidity really annoys me.

Jonny7

superluck wrote: »

Approx. 150 million people worldwide die of starvation every year but NATO cares about the poor brown people in Syria...at least that's what I'm being told by the intellectuals of Ireland.

NATO are a military organisation. It's akin to saying millions of people starve every year but the Chinese military are concerned only with defense. That's because its their job.

They aren't involved in Syria.

NATO care so much about these brown peasants that they will sponser thugs to go shooting them.

Again, garbled logic, not sure how to address it.

No doubt if NATO do start bombing and kill some civilians, they'll call it "collateral damage"

Yup, true.

Stupidity really annoys me.

Well some could say it's a strong case of the pot calling the kettle.