Guardian

The Guardian Posts Another Misleading Photograph


This is a guest post by AKUS

There is an article by Carlo Strenger on CiF, April 15th, 2010 which appears to continue the trend we have seen of posting misleading photographs:

“Alert reader” SantaMoniker picked up a few problems with this picture and its caption:

Here’s an interesting “rebuttal” directed at SantaMoniker by a CiF habitué:


Who cares if it’s the truth, indeed? “Objectively” it’s the truth, as alert reader SantaMoniker pointed out:

As long as it can be used to condemn Israel – like the Al Durrah affair, the Goldstone report, an article by Rachel Shabi, Ben White or Seth Freedman etc. etc. etc. – it’s the truth.

Actually, there are several things that may be wrong with this picture, and I would be interested to see a response from the Guardian (fat chance!) and Associated Press.

First, it is clear that the image in the background is the Dome of the Rock, not Al Aqsa – the slanted walls shown are a perspective view are due to the octagonal structure of the Dome, whereas Al Aqsa has a straight front due to its rectangular structure. Moreover, the color of the building in the background is clearly intended to indicate the famous golden color of the Dome.

So the caption reading “An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man pauses in front of the al-Aqsa mosque, on the site known by Jews as Temple Mount. Photograph: Bernat Armangue/AP” is simply wrong if we are expected to believe the man is looking at Al Aqsa, or is intended to indicate that the photo was taken by Armangue from in front of Al Aqsa pointing his camera towards the Dome and the man was standing between Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, looking towards the latter.

In fact, as alert reader SantaMoniker points out the only way this image could have been made (and I will fill in for her here – “assuming that this is not simply a Photoshop combination of two images”) would have been either:

1. to photograph the man from one of the buildings surrounding the square in front of the Temple Mount, probably as he stood in the Jewish Quarter – because, as she said – no Ultra-Orthodox Jew would ever go onto the Temple Mount – the Rabbis have prohibited it; or

2. someone dressed up as an Orthodox Jew was planted there to make the picture

This may seem to the “gondwanaland”s of the world and CiF’s editors a trivial matter. However, there are few more inflammatory spaces in the world than the Temple Mount, and the only thing more inflammatory than that is the idea held among Moslems propagandists that the Jews are planning to destroy Al Aqsa.

The use of a photograph like this, especially if it turns out to be faked or its caption erroneous is highly inflammatory.

But it’s not the first time we’ve seen this sort of thing. The use of faked photos and photos has been a staple of Palestinian propaganda, and this is only the latest, and possible the most outrageous, of images in the Guardian deliberately placed to mislead, such as the infamous picture of Arabs walking past the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

There’s a word for it, and that word is “Pallywood”.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: ,

30 replies »

  1. Actually, it appears that it is the caption that is misleading, not the photo.

    Captions, you seem to be unaware, are not written by photographers.

  2. If you need further proof visit the link http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html. The attached picture obviously has been taken by the same photographer at the same time and the same place. Everyone can see that the haredi man is standing on the Western Wall Plaza in the Jewish quarter far from the mosque.

    The Guardian has no shame – it started using photoshopped or clearly distorted photographic materials in its incitement campaign against the Jews.

  3. Reminds one of the 2006 (crudely) photo-shopped pictures of the bombing of Beirut, also designed to incite readers against Israelis.

  4. I started liking this article because the camera does lie.. but Santa Moniker overwound the alarm clock with the leap to Orwell and 1930s mass murdering ” communism “. For goodness sake the Guardian folk can be accused of being middle class pillocks arrogant…self absorbed but do us a favour.

    The picture is photoshopped.. it wasnt staged is my very inexpert opinion.

    peterthehungarian

    “The Guardian using photoshopped/ distorted.. materials in its incitement campaign against the Jews.”

    .

    Peter no one else will tell you because they are all on your side but the Guardian sets itself up as a clever and subtle paper . You need to be way more subtle yourself to fight it. “its incitement campaign against the Jews ” is just too easy to bat out of the ground .

    The Guardian can easily be accused of being pro Palestinian and overstressing any Israeli violence as compared to Brit violence but “incitement campaign against the Jews ” is teethgrindingly simplistic”

    A conspiracy against the Jews in a leading Brit paper post holocaust is risible It has many pro Israeli writers from the moderate Petra to the tilted and wacky Alderman .

  5. Berchfiend the Guardian sets itself up as a clever and subtle paper
    And you are its clever and subtle rep here on this site?

    Wild loud raucous laughter in the background: or in American, ROFLYAO

  6. The photo also makes the man (and hence Jews) look sinister, by using shadow and filming him in dark clothing from behind, rather like the film noir movies of the forties; for example, Orson Welles as Harry Lyme in “The Third Man.”

    Moreover, his clasped hand appears sinister. What is he doing with it? Turning up his lapel against the cold – unlikely in Jerusalem; talking into an unseen mobile phone – more likely, but this gives the subconscious impression of spying somehow. One thing is certain, that will probably go unnoticed by most viewers, because of the shadowy photography – he is a thumbnail biter.

  7. Greensleeves

    G “And you are its clever and subtle rep here on this site?”

    “” I disagree with you but I admire your honesty .””

    G “Wild loud raucous laughter .. American, ”

    That how I was brought up.The above quote is from “Son of Paleface” I still love it… watch ( bits of it ) regularly.

  8. I too looked at this picture and wondered why such a sinister shadowy character had been chosen by the Guardian as a representative of Jews (ultra-Orthodox or otherwise) and what this chap was doing on Temple Mount. The Guardian is incorrigible.

  9. Berchmans

    The picture is photoshopped.. it wasnt staged is my very inexpert opinion.

    You must be really very “inexpert”. The picture is clearly edited/cut and not photoshopped as you can see on the Ynet photo linked in my previous post.

    A conspiracy against the Jews in a leading Brit paper post holocaust is risible It has many pro Israeli writers from the moderate Petra to the tilted and wacky Alderman .

    They are doing it simply trying to keep some facade of being different from the Sturmer. Their attempts btw are pretty unsuccesful.

    The Guardian can easily be accused of being pro Palestinian…

    Not at all. The Guardian’s editors don’t give the smallest piece of shit to the wellbeing of the Palestinians – they are not “pro-Palestinian” they are anti-Jewish.
    The subject picture of this article is the best proof – it has nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with suggesting that religious Jews are entering the Temple Mount Muslim compound. Their purpose is to fuel the Muslims’ ongoing violent campaign in Jerusalem called “The al-Aqsa is in danger”. The picture as Duvid Crockett correctly wrote reminds me the worst kind of anti-semite graphics – a golden beautiful vista shadoved by a big black Jew.
    Every person who isn’t totally ignorant about the ME and Judaism knows that for religious Jews to go there is strictly forbidden, even there are signs from the rabbinate in Hebrew, Arabic and English stating this prohibition as everyone who ever has been there knows it very well.

    …the Guardian sets itself up as a clever and subtle paper…

    The Guardian is exactly as subtle and clever like yourself. Their subtlety is somehow limited to publish obviously fake anti-semitic graphics and rantings both above and under the line. Most of their as you called them “pro-Palestinian” contributors are either laughably ignorant about the subject or simply exploit their readers’ ignorance and need to vent their hate and envy of the jews in general and Israel in particular.

    A less important point Berchmans – the Guardian is not the leading paper – in according to the statistics it is only the third in the UK. But even being only the third – their commercial success paints a very sad picture about the open and hidden racism/antisemitism and colonialist mentality of British society and especially their main public the so called left intelligentsia.

  10. David Pinto, so what?

    Why should blogs be exempt from honesty?

    peterthehungarian – your comparison of the Guardian with Der Sturmer is apt in this case and others.

    It’s hilarious witnessing Berchmans’ attempts to defend al-Grauniad. How can such a one have reached the age he has with so little insight into the way he comes across?

    Duvid Crockett, making Jews look sinister was the strong suit of Der Sturmer and we know what happened once the notion of “Jews = sinister” was embedded in the German psyche.

  11. peterthehungarian

    Your link is amazing … do we now add plagiarism to the list of things wrong with this.

    You got me searching on Google for similar images.

    Look at this one:

    (I hope that link works!)

    It gives one a good idea of how the picture was taken – just as SantaMoniker suspected – from one of the buildings overlooking the Kotel.

  12. It seems like forces of darkness (Jews in this case) vs forces of light (Dome of the rock in this case) is what they were after.

  13. And then this one from LIFE magazine in 2004, no less!!

    http://www.life.com/image/51114528

    Photo: David Silverman/Getty Images

    Note the first part of the caption, and compare it with the Gardian’s caption:

    JERUSALEM – JULY 25: An ultra-Orthodox Jew looks at the golden Dome of the Rock Islamic shrine on the Temple Mount July 25, 2004 in Jerusalem’s old City. Israeli Public Security Minister Tzachi Hanegbi stated over the weekend that security officials are concerned that right-wing Jewish extremists might be plotting an attack on the Temple Mount to derail Israel’s redeployment from the Gaza Strip.

  14. David Pintoi

    Welcome to CW!

    But you need to read what’s written here a little more carefully. You wrote:

    “Actually, it appears that it is the caption that is misleading, not the photo.
    Captions, you seem to be unaware, are not written by photographers.”

    I wrote:

    So the caption reading “An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man pauses in front of the al-Aqsa mosque, on the site known by Jews as Temple Mount. Photograph: Bernat Armangue/AP” is simply wrong if we are expected to believe the man is looking at Al Aqsa, or is intended to indicate that the photo was taken by Armangue from in front of Al Aqsa pointing his camera towards the Dome and the man was standing between Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, looking towards the latter.”

    “The use of a photograph like this, especially if it turns out to be faked or its caption erroneous is highly inflammatory.”

    I never wrote that the photographer wrote the caption.

    I’m not perfect, but I try to be accurate.

    Unlike the Guardian, which is neither.

  15. Berchmans

    Give us all a break and revert to your usual snide malevolent one liners we have become accustomed to over at CIF . Toning down your usual routine because you are playing away from home just makes you ridiculous and a little schizophrenic . That aside, it makes me quite nauseous.

  16. AKUS, a very nice illustration of how deep the lack of knowledge of the Israel bashers is: Al Aqsa, my foot! In no time there will be reports in the Arab press complaining that the Jooos have ruined Al Aqsa by painting its roof in gold!
    But what’s also interesting in the caption is that the ultra-orthodox Jew “pauses” in front of “Al Aqsa”: pauses suggests a casual stroll, or somebody stopping on his everyday way to a place — but of course, visiting hours to the Temple Mount are strictly limited, and the rules in place — all of them on the insistence of the Muslim authorities — forbid visitors from showing any non-Muslim religious sentiment while on the Temple Mount.

    But I may be wrong on all that, because I’m talking here about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Israel — and we know by now that according to the ruling of the British Ad superagency, there is no Temple Mount in Israel…

  17. AKUS

    “…….I’m not perfect, but I try to be accurate.

    Unlike the Guardian, which is neither…..”

    No, the Guardian is worse than inaccurate because inaccuracy implies carelessness or ignorance. The Guardian (and not only the Guardian) employs subtle and not so subtle tactics to sway your opinion with the use of lies. Its the apartheid analogy in a picture. I agree with Peter.

    Once again, AKUS, I have to compliment you for your approach to the media. Its a good lesson for Gondwanaland who I believe just could not understand the significance of why SantaMoniker was questioning the picture.

  18. sababa

    Al Aqsa, my foot!

    Oh, my! Do yu realise how offensive you have been?

    In Islam, feet are considered dirty. But Al Aqsa is Islam’s third holiest shrine. Your juxtaposing them in one phrase is an unforgivable insult to Islam.

    Expect OIC condemnation, UN condemnation, and riots in Pakistan.

  19. SarahLeah

    “peterthehungarian – your comparison of the Guardian with Der Sturmer is apt in this case and others.”

    This is even too silly for me. Im outa here.

  20. Toko, OK, the reports will be about the Joooos having foot-painted Al Aqsa in gold. Obviously, there has never ever been a comparable outrage in world history!

  21. There is a noticeable change in the Anti-Israeli comments in the Guardian,since CiFWatch came into being and sprang into action.

    The posts on CiF are just as nasty as they ever were,but now these anti-Israeli posters choose their words very carefully,because they know that they are being watched and monitored.

    gondawanaland mentioned ”Who cares?,it’s a great photo”

    Not the Guardian that’s for sure.

    “If there is a bit of photoshopping involved so what.Welcome to the 21st century”

    The Guardian’s 21st century of photoshopping,in more ways than one.

  22. This becoming rather curious.

    I went to the AP website, and searched on “Bernat Armangue” Jerusalem in the images section.

    The image is found there (it takes quite a lot of digging) with the following caption:

    An ultra Orthodox Jewish man pauses in front the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site and known by Jews as Temple Mount, in Jerusalem’s Old City, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Bernat Armangue)

    The image can be found as

    APTOPIX MIDEAST ISRAEL PALESTINIANS #091111019567

    So the criticism of the photo stands, and should be directed at Associated Press, with some towards the Guardian for accepting the caption without checking the obvious inaccuracies.
    ————

    By the way – different topic – while I was hunting around on the AP site, here’s an image of a Syrian child acting “suicide bomber” that as far as i know has not appeared on the Guardian’s site, or elsewhere, despite a number of articles explaining why Israel should make peace with Syria:

    image #100326112719

    A young Syrian proteste holds the holy Quran and wears a fake dynamite belt as she acts as a suicide bomber, during a demonstration in Damascus, Syria, Friday March 26, 2010. Tens of thousands of Syrians and Palestinians have gathered in a Damascus square in a government-orchestrated “march of anger” against Israeli practices in east Jerusalem. (AP Photo/Ola Rifai)

    http://www.apimages.com/OneUp.aspx?st=k&kw=aptopix%20israel&showact=results&sort=date&intv=None&sh=10&kwstyle=and&adte=1271500415&dah=-1&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&nextdah=60%2C60%2C60%2C60%2C60%2C60%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX%2CX&rids=598dc275c8244bc193ea3f198bc615eb&dbm=PThirtyDay&page=1&xslt=1&dispname=100326112719%2C%20APTOPIX%20Mideast%20Syria%20Israel

  23. change
    .

    “The posts on CiF are just as nasty as they ever were”

    And yet not more than a post or two above yours we have on CIFWatch

    SarahLeah ” comparison of the Guardian with Der Sturmer is apt ”

    and

    sababa …”the Joooos having foot-painted Al Aqsagold”

    CIF is not the only place where crazy nazi comparisons and anti Semitism is rife

  24. Dopey, above: “….This is even too silly for me. Im outa here….”

    Promise?

    Show us you are a man of your word and don’t come back!

  25. TomWonacott

    No, the Guardian is worse than inaccurate because inaccuracy implies carelessness or ignorance. The Guardian (and not only the Guardian) employs subtle and not so subtle tactics to sway your opinion with the use of lies. Its the apartheid analogy in a picture. I agree with Peter.

    Indeed that is the situation.

    The Guardian calls itself a newspaper but, in reality, it is a Mind Fuck, pure and simple.

    I wonder that they have so many subscribers. To pay to have your mind fucked must be embarrassing.