More crazy captions from Lebanon

World

More crazy captions from Lebanon

Flemish blogger Dog of Flanders has discovered another quirky set of captions. Spot the differences.

Source link
Caption: Tyre, LEBANON: Rockets fired from Israel are seen falling in the outskirts of the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre, 06 August 2006. Israel's army will carry on fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon until two soldiers, whose capture sparked the conflict last month, are returned, its ambassador to Washington said today. AFP PHOTO/SAMUEL ARANDA (Photo credit should read SAMUEL ARANDA/AFP/Getty Images)
Copyright: 2006 AFP
By/Title: SAMUEL ARANDA/Stringer
Date Created: 6 Aug 2006 12:00 AM
Object Name: Nic83612

Source link
Caption: Tyre, LEBANON: Katyusha rockets are fired from the outskirts of the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre into Israel, 06 August 2006. Israel's army will carry on fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon until two soldiers, whose capture sparked the conflict last month, are returned, its ambassador to Washington said today. EDS NOTE: CORRECTING DIRECTION OF SHELLING. AFP PHOTO/SAMUEL ARANDA (Photo credit should read SAMUEL ARANDA/AFP/Getty Images)
Copyright: 2006 AFP
By/Title: SAMUEL ARANDA/Stringer
Date Created: 6 Aug 2006 12:00 AM
Object Name: Nic83612

published on Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 00:46 CET

Comments

Outlaw Mike

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 01:00 CET - #24410

I fear I don't get the point. First of all, it's clearly outgoing fire. The Israelis use artillery, not missiles, so the buildings must be in Lebanon. Thus, it's Hizballah firing in the direction of Israel.

On his site Dof seems to suggest this Aranda fella is not so much biased as he is either plain stupid and/or provides two different captions so as to have it right in one of the two cases.

What you post here, Luc, seems to be AFP rectifying the first mistake (that it was incoming fire FROM Israel), see "EDS note". What does "EDS" mean btw?

luc

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 01:10 CET - #24411

Of course its AFP correcting their own error. That's what you should have discovered after "spotting the differences". Do I, or Dof, have to spell everything out?

luc

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 01:10 CET - #24412

Eds note = editor's note

Jöe

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 08:41 CET - #24414

why 2 photos??

dof

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 12:26 CET - #24430

"why 2 photos"

Well, yes, that is the point I'm trying to make.

Correcting usually is done by _replacing_ the incorrect item by the correct item, not _adding_ the correct item and leaving the incorrect item in situ.

If, for some reason, the incorrect item must remain in the database, the least you could do is mark it as being superseded by the correct one.

luc

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 12:41 CET - #24432

@dof: Press agencies and photo agencies are used to work in a "push" oriented way. When a correction has to be made, you can't take back the telex or the picture you've sent out to thousands of customers, so you send out a new message with "correct previous message" or "kill picture".

And probably the web database is just a copy of all the messages they've sent out in a chronological order.

Which proves that just copying the bricks-and-mortar model to the bits-and-bytes world doesn't always make sense. On the other hand, it's perfect to reconstruct how the flow of information from source to newsroom took place.

dof

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 13:06 CET - #24434

No, the Getty web database has a very complex search interface, so it is also, or even for the most part, a "pull" environment.

If you go to http://editorial.gettyimage... and search for

falling rockets tyre

you only get the incorrectly labeled picture, without any mention of the correct photo.

Björn Roose

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 21:53 CET - #24477

In other words: Getty did not correct the incorrectly labeled picture ...

luc

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 22:07 CET - #24478

They took it down today.

dof

Tuesday 08 August 2006 @ 23:45 CET - #24481

It was on "The Jawa Report" and others today.

Outlaw Mike

Wednesday 09 August 2006 @ 00:56 CET - #24483

"Do I, or Dof, have to spell everything out?"

You AND Dof, if you please. Btw, I STILL don't know whether Samuel Aranda first deliberately suggested it was Israel firing INTO Tyre, and that it was the editor who had to correct him, or that he, like Dof said, couldn't be more neutral (by providing both firing directions) than if his brains had fallen out.

Not that all of it matters anyway. What matters is if Hizballah will be crippled (if not destroyed) or not.

dof

Wednesday 09 August 2006 @ 10:57 CET - #24509

@Mike:

To provide Aranda with the benefit of the doubt, we have to conjecture he suffers from some weird ailment that causes his senses to scramble his perceptions backwards in time.

Overachiever

Wednesday 09 August 2006 @ 15:54 CET - #24544

Most agencies work this way, sending out a correction or - as e.g. Reuters calls it - a 'mandatory kill'. Newspapers have systems in place that automatically pick this up and hide the original picture from view. Really, you can't judge by what is or isn't shown on a public web interface.

dof

Wednesday 09 August 2006 @ 17:00 CET - #24553

"Really, you can't judge by what is or isn't shown on a public web interface."

Says some idiot from the local leftist rag.

Surely I can, because I just did that.

Maybe you meant I mustn't? Or shouldn't? But why? Because it is a bit inconvenient for them?

Obviously, the answer to that is to make it even LESS inconvenient for them to NOT fix these mistakes.

And look: if enough people point out the error, it CAN be deleted. Maybe it was inconvenient, but it was possible.

dof

Wednesday 09 August 2006 @ 17:01 CET - #24555

LESS convenient

Add comment

TrackBack)

DISALLOWED (TrackBack)