INTERNATIONAL POLICY - Is Wall Street Journal USING IMAGES TO INCITE?

Submitted by Jeff Buster on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 14:15.

On June 15, 2009 the Wall Street Journal used  this image on the front page. The image is credited to AFP/Getty Images and purportedly shows a person with “POLICE” in English (are the words on riot gear in Iran in English?) on the rear of their jacket in the midst of swinging a billy club at a standing man while holding onto the man’s wrist. The image is not attributed to a particular photographer.
 

On June 17, 2009 the Wall Street Journal used this "running to the fire" image on the front page. The image purportedly shows people running on a public street towards a fire. The image is credited to Getty Images without attribution to a particular photographer
 
On June 16 the Wall Street Journal carried a front page image credited to the AP of a graphically bloodied man "allegedly shot" being supported - one arm being held up by the wrist - in a crowd of men. 
 
Each of the images were connected to "reports" with the byline of  Farnaz  Fassihi.
 
I don't recall seeing any Wall Street Journal front pages three days running with images like this of US soldiers in conflict in Iraq.  
 
ARE THE IMAGES HONEST?  
 
Recently President Obama refused to allow the release of photographs showing US torture of Iraqi prisoners. Mr. Obama said that the release of the images would endanger US military personnel because the graphic nature of the images would act to incite retaliation against the US military.   And Mr. Obama is probably correct – the images would incite retaliation.
 
Clearly Mr. Obama, and the US military advisers who counseled the President, understand how powerful images are – especially in a time of active adversity with an opponent.
 
So it is not realistic to believe that the US (CIA special opps) and/or conservative news organizations would not be using the power of images to attempt to incite situations within the political organizations and territories of nations and states which they may view as adversarial, such as Iran.   Keep in mind that the primary purpose of these images, available on the internet,  may be to creat civil unrest in Iran to cause the ouster of the present Iranian government and bring in a government more sympathetic to the US and US allies in the mideast.
 
Even with primitive Photoshop skills, it would not be difficult to create  the images which the Wall Street Journal used. Every architecture student today does similar “creations” for their project presentations.
 
A technical review of the shadows, stances, surface textures in the image, particularly the upper two, suggests to me that these images are mashups. 
 
I challenge the Wall Street Journal and Getty to authenticate them.

 

( categories: )

All Eyes on Iran while another $100B is Spent on Iraq

Jeff,

As a 20+ year visual artist, being the editor of Art Digital Magazine, I must admit, those images do seem peculiar. 

I also find it odd that with the American economy essentially being deep in the crapper, and a President in the White House who based almost the entirety of his campaign platform on bringing peace to the Middle East by ending the Iraq occupation, President Obama and the Congress just quietly rubber stamped another $100B+  on top of the $1T that's already been spent in the name of national security.  And these numbers don't include the $500B Pentagon budget for this year!

So where's Move On?  Where's The Huffington Post?  It would seem they are M.I.A.

The Huffington Post, known for its so-called "liberal" slant, has not put this massive war spending bill on their signature, bold font, homepage marquee.  No, instead for the last week, all that's been up on that header has been IRAN, IRAN, TWITTER, IRAN, IRAN, TWITTER, IRAN, IRAN, TWITTER...well you get my point.  But not everyone has allowed themselves the luxury of hysteria, self-deception and delusion. It seems a few amongst us have noticed, however reluctantly, that Obama is not quite following through as promised.  Some, having grown weary of the soaring and lofty rhetoric that our President is know for, are starting to point out the obvious; like Politico, Glenn Greenwald, and shockingly, The Washington Post.  Even hard core lefty Bill Maher has reached his limit, lambasting Obama in a scathing video critique about the President's obsession with maintaining his self-indulgent, A-list, celebrity status.  On my own personal blog, I've also re-posted and written about this too. 

Though returning back to topic of your post, one must remember that as of last year, the Wall Street Journal is now officially a defacto arm of FOX (faux) News; owned by Rupert Murdoch.  With that knowledge, are you really so surprised that yet another propaganda campaign is likely afoot?

Thank God for citizen journalism!

democracy now! is not MIA

 in fact, they've been providing coverage of these very subjects recently:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Pressures Antiwar Democrats to Approve $106 Billion War Funding Bill

and:

House Passes $106 Billion War Spending Bill

The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed a $106 billion spending bill to expand the war in Afghanistan and to continue funding the war in Iraq. Thirty-two antiwar Democrats voted against the measure, as did all but five Republicans. The Republicans opposed a part of the bill to increase funding for the International Monetary Fund. The final vote was 226 to 202. Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted against the war funding.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “We’re destroying our nation’s moral and fiscal integrity with the war supplemental. Instead of ending wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now by appropriating only enough money to bring our troops home, Congress abdicates its constitutional authority, defers to the President, and asks for a report. That’s right. All we’re asking for is a report on when the President will end the war."

Dennis Kucinich also criticized the increased funding for the International Monetary Fund.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “There’s money, too, for the IMF, presumably to bail out European banks, billions for the IMF, so they can force low- and middle-income nations to cut jobs, wages, healthcare and retirement security, just like corporate America does to our constituents. And there’s money to incentivize the purchase of more cars, but not necessarily from the US, because a Buy America mandate was not allowed. Another $106 billion, and all we get is a lousy war. Pretty soon that’s going to be about the only thing made in America: war."

ALso this:

Despite Campaign Promises, President Obama Adopts President Bush’s Policy of Secrecy

and dont forget the health care issue:

Report: Senator Max Baucus Received More Campaign Money from Health and Insurance Industry Interests than Any Other Member of Congress.

Protests Continue in Iran; Government Cracks Down on Foreign Media

Would a Government use a Newspaper to advance it's objectives?

 Would the CIA seed the "press" in Syria?  Or Libya?  Would MI5?

How about a SuperPAC?   Would they ever use Photoshop?

Would the Russian gov hire a "reporter" to post a few images?  How about Hamas?  How about Isreal? 

Or in Egypt - who would be intersted in effecting the news?  

And what paper or other media outlet would want the money, or have the interest in exciting a  particular viewpoint?

Would the Dirty Dealer ever push a right wing cause for a buck?

As Mr. Romney knows, (and of course Mr. Obama knows too) you only get what you pay for.....

Bill Moyer show-obedient workers...