At the Guardian, pictures are really worth a thousand (misleading) words

In “The Guardian has a problem with Photographs“, (CiF Watch, Aug. 8), Akus cited several examples of Guardian photos being used which either were misleading, inflammatory, and/or downright dishonest (one photo of Gaza used in a 2010 article by Laila El-Haddad, to reinforce the essay’s suggestion that Gaza was “worse than a prison camp“, below, was actually a shot taken back in 2005, before Israel’s withdrawal.  Subsequent criticism resulted in the Guardian removing the photo.)

Here is Harriet Sherwood’s recent dispatch about Israeli legislation which requires a national referendum before any decision to withdraw from Golan.

Of all the photographs to use, Guardian editors chose one from Ghajar at an angle showing the IDF soldier’s weapon pointed at a Palestinian child.

Can anyone seriously claim that the angle of the weapon in relation to the child is merely a coincidence?  Can someone truly argue, with a straight face, that the juxtaposition may not have been noticed by Guardian editors when making the decision to use this photograph?

For anyone even faintly familiar with the Guardian’s relentless demonization of Israel, the answer should be obvious.

8 replies »

  1. “Guardian editors chose one from Ghajar at an angle showing the IDF soldier’s weapon pointed at a Palestinian child.”

    The child is not Palestinian but an Israeli Arab from Rajar.

    The only connection which is certain is that both are Arabs.

  2. I think that The Guardian has somewhat shot itself in the foot again. The child seems quite unconcerned by the heavily armed soldier in his path.

    One must wonder why the child is not terrified.

    I don’t wonder and the Guardian faithful don’t wonder about any ‘heresy’ but perhaps chance readers may wonder.

  3. Children in Ghajar know full well that the soldiers are there to protect them. They’re used to seeing these boys dressed in modern fighting gear and probably even hero-worship them and want to be like them.

  4. From my perspective it appears that the gun is resting in the soldiers arm as he gazes in a completely different direction from the child. The picture indicates to me, neither is paying much attention to the other. Only a careless eye would interpret it otherwise.

  5. The only person liable to be shot in the foot is the soldier. Why is the barrel pointing down from the body of the weapon?Is it a safety feature like a ‘broken’ shot gun?

  6. I’m not sure if the gun is “pointed at” the child, but it’s certainly an evocative image – and a very poor choice. I’ve said before that there should not be any pic at all if they are unable (although that can’t be the case here) to find a suitable one.

    In this case a map would have been far better.

  7. The Guardian has become the leading purveyor of fauxtography among those who claim to be “leading newspapers”.

    Another disgusting example.