The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
Gerard Baker, US editor of the London Times, responds to Michelle Malkin calling out the Times over an appalling picture blunder:
Thank you for pointing out the dreadful error on our website involving the wrong picture and capture of murdered Iraqis. I have asked that it be removed immediately and an apology issued.
I’m sorry you have jumped to the conclusion that this was a deliberate misrepresentation and the result of slanted journalism and sorrier that you have shared that view with your readers without any attempt to verify it. The Times has been meticulously fair in its coverage of the Iraq war and of US policy in general. Our editorial line has been to support the war and we continue to do so, though not without some reservations, of course. We have eschewed completely the sort of vile anti-Americanism so common in much of the British press and our correspondents have done their level best to paint a fair picture of conditions in Iraq today.
I’m personally offended both by the error on the Times website and by your association of me with what you call the intentional slander of US marines.
You’re probably not aware of my writing but I think I think most readers would probably describe myself as one of the most pro-American columnists currently employed by a British paper. I have repeatedly defended the Bush administration’s foreign policy; I supported the Iraq war, and continue to do so. Please be apprised that this was a genuine and very unfortunate error.
Hit the link for more, including Malkin’s reply.
- Good to see Malkin onto this and the PC rubbish concerning Canada’s Islamic terrorist suspects.Posted by Nic on 2006 06 04 at 08:36 AM • permalink
- I don’t buy it, for the simple reason that I do not believe the Times does not have its reference and morgue material filed, indexed, cross-indexed, referenced, and cross-referenced. Yeah, they operate in a different legal environment from the U.S., but in most cases it’s push and pull on the effects, and they can not afford to inadvertently slander people.
What I do believe is that this is a case of staff not willing to go along with management policy. The Times‘s official stance is support, but all it would take is a couple of sub-editors who don’t agree with that to pull this sort of stunt. It would be nice to know their names so we can compliment them as they deserve.
Regards,
Ric
- From long experience in the media, and as a current newspaper employee – and I think Tim can back me up on this – the official stance of a paper generally means little outside the op-ed pages, where section and sub-editors who vary little whether it’s the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily News or the Guardian act according to their convictions, working from the copy of reporters and wire services whose biases match their own so neatly that it’s really not much work to push the same line, regardless of the masthead. As someone who’s done my time editing Reuters wire copy down to fit news items, the bias is worked into the weave of the story, and you risk blowing page deadlines by doing the rewrite necessary to make it at least neutral.
So whether it’s AP’s or the Times’ fault – who knows. Probably both.
Posted by rick mcginnis on 2006 06 04 at 09:35 AM • permalink
- Ross — It’s not a one-off. Someone over at Malkin’s went back through the Times’ Iraq headlines.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 04 at 02:45 PM • permalink
- Baker IS a good guy. His columns are by and large very supportive of the war effort, both on terrorism and Iraq. He also writes for the Weekly Standard, a pretty good publication here in the states. I’m sure he was embarassed by that headline and photo. I agree with Rick McGinnis, it was probably some liberal grunt on the paper.Posted by Kathy from Austin on 2006 06 04 at 03:38 PM • permalink
- Newspaper Subs/Copy editors will use any picture that comes to hand without any thought (usually for expediency and time).
I recall about 10 years ago one of the London tabloids (the Sun I think) did a salacious piece on small breasted women and used a file photo from the late 1970s/early 1980s of who they thought was an anonymous model.
It wasn’t, it was of Australian actress Sigrid Thornton. She sued and won.
I’d like to see more of that…
— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 06 04 at 04:49 PM • permalink
You’re probably not aware of my writing but I think most readers would probably describe myself as one of the most pro-American columnists currently employed by a British paper.
And the BAFTA award for Damning with Faint Praise goes to…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 04 at 05:28 PM • permalink
- Nora is right about how papers are assembled–the page layout will come with a space marked “picture here” or some such, and it’s often up to the page editor or art guy to find one that matches the subject matter.
Baker is a great columnist, and his self-description is perfectly accurate. Now that the Telegraph is going wobbly, Baker’s one of a mere handful of British newsmen still abjuring the anti-American sneers and scoldings and conspiracy theorizing that the rest of them indulge in.
Read his work before you criticize.Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 06 04 at 06:06 PM • permalink
- #8—it would be nice to think it was an innocent error, but consider this: the photo used was not taken by a London Times photographer, it belonged to the outfit that wrote the original massacre story (the one where we didn’t do it.) In order to use the photo they either had to pay for it, or credit it, or both, and it would have been hard to acquire it without knowing the story that ran with it. I dunno, is The Times really that casual about copyright law? Somebody?
- This is the same manufactured propaganda that the Palestinians regularly carry out to frame Israeli Jews. Jenin, for example was a movie-produced-pretend massacre. Hence the term, ‘Pallywood.’
Unfortunately these Iraqis were actually slaughtered by fellow Arabs.
Shame on The London Times—there is no excuse for running this image.
Sorry guys, but blaming the copyeditor doesn’t work. The Editor, should have done his frigging job and checked the proofs before it went to print. If, in fact, this was not done deliberately. However, my instincts tell me it was. Nobody can be that stupid.
- As Rebecca says, we’re waiting for the apology and retraction. But what about reparations?
A photo like this will be taken by every Arab and Muslim newspaper and published on front pages with a citation to the Times. The latter gives it creedance and authenticity. It is very likely that most, possibly all, newspapers will make no attempt to publish any apology or retraction by the Times. We must remember that this is the same culture that aired a multi-part series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Further, it is both likely and foreseeable that the photo will incense a population that is very susceptible to encitement to violence. As a consequence, this could do great harm to the coalition’s efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. This is not the same thing as publishing the photo of some person by mistake. The stakes are must higher so the Times bears a responsibility to make sure its facts and photos are absolutely correct. There is no margin for error.
The US alone has spent tens of billions of dollars on this war effort. Photos such as those published by the Times can have such a detrimental effect that it easily prolongs or even helps to make impossible the efforts made by the coalition. How does the Times compensate the coalition for its egregious error?
In my opinion, this reminds me of a case maybe 20 years or so ago. During the Cold War, the US installed an oceanic subsurface system that allowed us to track Soviet submarines. We spent billions on this system but it was based on being able to hear the Soviets’ noisy subs. In a terrible case of greed and betrayal, a Japanese company, Toshiba I believe, sold the Soviets machinery that would allow it to craft more quiet propulsion systems, circumventing the American tracking system. The sale by Toshiba was expressly illegal and yet they did it anyway.
Toshiba was extremely embarrassed. Heads rolled and compensation was offered. By how does one compensate for a billion dollar system made useless?
How does one compensate for fake photos published by Arab newspapers which make the Coalition’s efforts harder?
Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 04 at 09:50 PM • permalink
- Excellent point Wronwright. If the lower ranked editorial staff who decided to lift this picture, use it to lie about US Marines and make propaganda for the jihadis don’t lose their jobs PDQ, we’ll know the Times is not really serious about accurate coverage of the war, only in covering its ass when its worker bees’ propaganda activities are found out.Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 06 04 at 10:40 PM • permalink
- I have to go with wronwright on this. Remember what a bad piece of information about toilets and the Koran did? People died. It will be the Coalition forces who will die.
I don’t expect perfection from people or their institutions. But why is it that the “mistakes” always harm the
members of the Coalition in some way?
- #15 – Now that the Telegraph is going wobbly…
I’ve noticed that as well – fairly- anti-US these days (although very anti-Blair as well).
And nearly every piece from Nick Squires about Australia or the Pacific region is a crock. Doesn’t like Howard – and it shows. I wish they’d get a better or more balanced Australian reporter.
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 06 04 at 10:57 PM • permalink
This is the same manufactured propaganda …
daphne on 2006 06 04 at 09:40 PM • permalinkNo… it’s just the wrong photo of executed civilians from one current news story attributed incorrectly to another on the same topic. As a previous poster pointed out the photographs of the Haditha victims executed by US forces featured more people and more women and children.
If you believe it’s propoganda feel free to email Malkin and tell her to quit complaining about it. Or just figure out yourself WTF you’re talking about.
- gee Tank
“Or just figure out yourself WTF you’re talking about.”
It appears that you don’t understand what the topic is here. Falsely attributing images is a method of propagandising. The fact that they are, in fact, real images — does not dilute the reality that they are used to promote hatred and injustice against the Americans. Nor does it dilute the crime if the correct image is worse than the fake. The newspaper’s intention is the unethical act here, not your assessment of which image is more offensive.
You do not appear to know the moral difference between insurgent assassinations and US Army soldiersw ho have committed murder. That difference is that the insurgents are supported and rewarded by their fellow Arabs for murdering civilians. The US soldiers, on the other hand, face Court Martial and the death penalty for their behaviour. A civilised society condemns civilian murder, and a barbaric one condones it. Perhaps you ought to go and live in one of the Arab states if you prefer their customs and laws. Or perhaps, you ought to acquaint yourself with the difference.
- addamo
“Good on Malkign for spotting the error. As is clearly obvious from the photographs, the picture contains no evidence of dead children or their mothers protecting them.”
As usual addamo, don’t let the truth stand in the way of a good story.
You need to go and wank with sicko Ant-boy—the great Australian traitor. Get him to liven up a bit—so you don’t wander off onto other blogs. Perhaps you could do drag together—you can get dressed up as Chomsky or Fisk and give him a hard on.
As Rebecca says, we’re waiting for the apology and retraction. But what about reparations?
You’re waiting for an apology about an article you never read which included a photograph you never saw in a publication you don’t read ?
Can you really make time for that while waiting for apologies about all the product recalls in the newspaper for stuff you never bought ?A photo like this will be taken by every Arab and Muslim newspaper and published on front pages with a citation to the Times.
Why’s that ? Is the idea that the Arab press is as unfamiliar with the Hadita footage and photographs as some Western press is ?
Do you actually think that’s the case ?
The story broke in the Iraqi press less than a week after it happened. If you think coverage in Western press since then of the photographs and video even rates you’re very naive.The latter gives it creedance and authenticity. It is very likely that most, possibly all, newspapers will make no attempt to publish any apology or retraction by the Times.
I’d go further than that and it’s guaranteed that with one exception no newspapers will make no apology for a mistake in the Times. WTF was the alternative ?
Further, it is both likely and foreseeable that the photo will incense a population that is very susceptible to encitement to violence.
And that changes based on the caption in an english language newspaper does it ?
One that confused photographs of a recent execution of Iraqi civilians with those photographs of the Haditha incident which ran on every Middle East station and in every newspaper in November 2005. Right.As a consequence, this could do great harm to the coalition’s efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.
…
Photos such as those published by the Times can have such a detrimental effect that it easily prolongs or even helps to make impossible the efforts made by the coalition.Well that plus the counterinsurgency campaign undermanned by all historical and military standards which has failed to put down the insurgency or deny it the ability to steadily increase it’s attacks over a period of 5 years.
One of these things has had a more significant impact over that 5 year period. I’d love to hear you argue it’s the photo. Not even argue it… just state it if you believe it and don’t if you don’t.How does the Times compensate the coalition for its egregious error?
Replace the incorrect photograph of 19 executed men with the correct one of 24 men women and children.
I think when it comes to compensation for egregious errors surrounding the Haditha incident the coalition already made those payments. Quite a lot earlier than any supposed knowledge of wrongdoing by at least one account.By how does one compensate for a billion dollar (submarine detection) system made useless?
I dunno. Bring it up at random on blogs 20 years later in a discussion about two photo captions getting mixed up ?
How does one compensate for fake photos published by Arab newspapers which make the Coalition’s efforts harder?
Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 04 at 09:50How about a good dose of wizard magic. I mean we are talking about a completely fictional scenario here right ?
- 21. You’re not the guerilla warrior behind enemy lines you think you are, unless you can find purpose and dignity in being a piece of shit.Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 05 at 09:20 AM • permalink
It appears that you don’t understand what the topic is here. Falsely attributing images is a method of propagandising.
And falsely attributing an image of a smaller massacre of men in place of one depicting a larger massacre of mostly women and children isn’t negative propaganda.
Not just “not a method” either. Just plain not propaganda.The concept is literally a lie or misrepresentation that serves a purpose in shifting public opinion in a particular direction by taking a premise and distorting it and blowing it out of all proportion in one direction.
If the consensus is that this shifts public opinion in the opposite direction I think you could argue it can’t possibly be propaganda since it isn’t serving the desired purpose.
What can’t be argued is how stupid and/or biased you need to be to misinterpret it in completely the wrong direction.
Honestly, you find yourself confused by which side the neo nazis are on when they say that the holocaust only involved a few thousand Jews ? Or does the swastika arm bands let you avoid the complicated concepts of more-bad-stuff = worse less-bad-stuff = better when it comes to propaganda ?
The fact that they are, in fact, real images — does not dilute the reality that they are used to promote hatred and injustice against the Americans.
Your examples for them being used as you describe are…………… ?
None ? No citations of Arabic press where this has happened ?So basically your depiction of what has happened in this example of propoganda only works when you lie about what “in reality” has happened and when you base this on a preconception or willingness to believe the worst of your subject.
Yep. That’s propaganda.Nor does it dilute the crime if the correct image is worse than the fake. The newspaper’s intention is the unethical act here, not your assessment of which image is more offensive.
The crimes and unethical acts being the caption on the photographs of the piles of executed civilians. Gotcha.
You do not appear to know the moral difference between insurgent assassinations and US Army soldiers who have committed murder.
That’s because there is none. There are no assassinations involved here, which implies the selective targetting of a military or political leader (again, a premise I’m not sure why you’re affording to terrorists, see what you quoted me saying earlier). These are two cases of summary executions of civilians.
That difference is that the insurgents are supported and rewarded by their fellow Arabs for murdering civilians. The US soldiers, on the other hand, face Court Martial and the death penalty for their behaviour.
That’s the difference ? This execution of fishermen happened this week. The incident happening, the photographic evidence of what occurred and the published accounts that this was attributed to a particular group. That particular group still gets paid for what they did.
Sorry but there’s no difference between that and what happened in Haditha in November 2005.A civilised society condemns civilian murder, and a barbaric one condones it.
Is this the part where you suggest that Iraqi society has condoned these summary executions of civilians ? Got some regular politicians or religious leaders to cite here ?
Or are you back to relying on propoganda again ?Perhaps you ought to go and live in one of the Arab states if you prefer their customs and laws.
You are a bigoted retard. The reason you won’t dare even attempt to suggest how this Arab state’s customs and laws differ in any way whatsoever from your own in regard to civilian massacres likew this is because what you need to preserve your retarded bigoted beliefs is a complete aversion to facts. The natural enemy of the propoganda.
I think you were warning us about that earlier.
Or perhaps, you ought to acquaint yourself with the difference.
Posted by daphne on 2006 06 05 at 08:53 AM • permalinkPerhaps you ought to have a crack at educating all of us on that difference yourself chump. Yeah let’s wait for that to happen.
- Nice to see Tank and Addamo living down to their reputations as terrorist apologists and asshats. Keep up the good work!Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 12:30 PM • permalink
- 29. Call me when you’ve blown his house down, OK?Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 05 at 01:56 PM • permalink
- Tank
Your argument is based on accusations. Claiming my statements don’t stand up because I don’t provide your simple mind with examples is plain stupid and you know it.
You have no understanding of the means or laws of warfare. Otherwise you would see the difference between what the insurgents are doing(andbeing rewarded by their culture) and what the crooked US soldiers did.(and being punished by their culture)
And this:
“The reason you won’t dare even attempt to suggest how this Arab state’s customs and laws differ in any way whatsoever from your own in regard to civilian massacres likew this is because what you need to preserve your retarded bigoted beliefs is a complete aversion to facts”I assumed you were familiar with Sharia Law. Silly me. Islam is a violent religion. Go check out the public hangings and floggings in Iran or the treatment of women, such as Mukhtar Mai in Pakistan, who was gang raped on order of her village council because her 12 year old brother committed a small transgression. Go and check out how the Saudis send millions to prop up the suicide bombing industry. How many examples do you require Tank or can you go and read a newspaper?
In fact, Tank, go and grow a brain and quit annoying intelligent people. If you hate Western culture so much go and friggin live with the Arabs. Go. Go.
Tank, Your argument is based on accusations. Claiming my statements don’t stand up because I don’t provide your simple mind with examples is plain stupid and you know it.
No, actually there are no accusations in my arguement or related to it. If you’re referring to the accusation that US forces executed Iraqi citizens I think you’ll find that there are a dozen more claims of responsibility from that organisation than any insurgent group has ever provided for any attack in Iraq.
You have no understanding of the means or laws of warfare. Otherwise you would see the difference between what the insurgents are doing(andbeing rewarded by their culture) and what the crooked US soldiers did.(and being punished by their culture)
The culture you describe is where incidents like this are covered up and no punishment is dealt out until the press exposes it. The culture you hold dear is the one where it is the press’ responsibility to expose the crimes of US soldiers. Which I’m sure is why you welcome these stories appearing in the press.
Until Time published a series of articles on this incident nobody was going to be punished. Before those Time articles started the videos and photographs of the houses and bodies were published worldwide for several months, the military had already paid compensation to the families and there was no investigation. At the time that compensation was paid the military was claiming these people died in an IED explosion. Think about that. That’s the culture. Nobody’s punished unless they’re exposed in the press.
I can’t see how that differs from terrorists carrying out the same killings, still getting paid, rewarded with silence from those who could expose them and carry on as usual until they are identified. That’s exactly what the situation was with the US soldiers a week after Haditha.
So those fisherman got executed this week. Now let’s wait for 4 months and see if the press can come up with some suspects and see if the Iraqi judiciary is forced to start an investigation based on that. Then we’ll be able to compare the response of these two cultures to see how they differ.
I assumed you were familiar with Sharia Law. Silly me. Islam is a violent religion. Go check out the public hangings and floggings in Iran or the treatment of women, such as Mukhtar Mai in Pakistan, who was gang raped on order of her village council because her 12 year old brother committed a small transgression.
You forgot to mention the penalty for murdering a bunch of civilians. This being the particular law and/or culture you suggested differed so greatly between Iraq and the US/Australia. I think you were going for their’s being more lenient than ours. In fact you again just suggested that not only is there no punishment but there are rewards. I think you’re going to be disappointed.
Go and check out how the Saudis send millions to prop up the suicide bombing industry.
I’ve read CTblog and it’s predecessors daily for a couple of years now. I dunno what the point of you referring me to these types of reports is though.
Check out how little is being done about this ?
Check out how supporting terrorists killing US soldiers is rewarded with uninterrupted arms shipments from the US ?
Check out how not beating/executing women for social transgressions in view of the female US Sec State will get you praised by her ?How many examples do you require Tank or can you go and read a newspaper?
I want to read the newspaper articles I asked you to provide. How about you start with them.
In fact, Tank, go and grow a brain and quit annoying intelligent people. If you hate Western culture so much go and friggin live with the Arabs. Go. Go.
Posted by daphne on 2006 06 05 at 06:48 PMYeah intelligent people are always falling back on that old favourite.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
