A new front opens every day in the current Middle East war, including propaganda flare-ups in which new and unexpected participants join the fray, eager to partake in the PR campaign for Western hearts and minds.
A British Web site, the EU Referendum Blog, which focuses neither on media nor the Middle East, accused the Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France Presse on Monday of having staged their photos of the carnage in Qana, Lebanon where twenty-eight civilians, sixteen of whom were children, were killed on Sunday during an Israeli strike on the small village in the south. The incident was particularly charged because of memories of another Israeli air-strike in Qana 10 years ago that killed more than100 civilians in a UN compound.
Photos of bodies being pulled from the rubble by aid workers made the covers of many major newspapers around the world. EU Referendum decried the photos as “staged,” based on its analysis of the time-stamping of the photos and an examination of the mannerisms and attire of the principally photographed aid worker.
American commentator Rush Limbaugh, who never lets a fact get in the way of a rant, picked up on the story Monday directing radio listeners to the British website and then excerpting portions of the discussion under the title, “Kook Left Considers Any 9/11 Conspiracies, But Ignores Mounting Doubts About Qana.” Limbaugh even goes so far as to say Hezbollah actually blew up the civilians — despite the fact that Israel does not deny hitting the building where the civilians had taken refuge in the basement.
For their part, the agencies vehemently denied the accusations, emphasizing that their photographers can recognize when an event is being staged for their benefit. They also explained that time-stamping can indicate either when a photo has been taken or when it has been posted.
The Middle East photo director for AFP was quoted in a thorough AP article exploring the phony controversy, saying, “Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?”
While the EU Referendum post was given considerable publicity on blogs dedicated to proving a liberal bias in the media, their critique of the photos was hardly convincing. Nonetheless, the AP felt it had to respond. It put together its story on the charges and the responses because “Certain blogs, Web sites and talk shows were impugning our journalistic integrity,” explained Jack Stokes, an AP spokesman.
The Qana photos are only the most recent in the still young conflict to gain some attention. Recently, photographs of little Israeli girls doodling “From Israel with Love” on missiles that would soon be dropped on Lebanon caused an outcry, one that was met by an attempt to contextualize the actions and mitigate the furor they caused, including on these pages. Similarly, many Lebanese bloggers have criticized Western media outlets for sanitizing the conflict for their audiences and have taken it upon themselves to circulate images of dead civilians, frequently children.
While the return of conflict and propaganda to the Middle East would seem nothing new, what has changed is the number of competing and clashing voices from a variety of fronts, all trying to spin the quite unspinnable — the reality of death and destruction that war in every era brings.

In the other CJR piece you mention, it is suggested that the girls did not write "From Israel with Love", but that they drew pictures with all of the writing being done by their parents. Was that incorrect?
I shared a comment in relation to that other piece which bears repeating: There is no definition of "doodling" which fits what is shown in the pictures. What your other piece describes the girls as doing is drawing. What you describe is writing. It should also be noted in the interest of accuracy that the pictures did not show missiles - they showed shells.
As I read it, the other piece works to advance a particular side's spin of the story, rather than trying to cut through the spin. In contrast, this piece seems to strive to avoid taking a strong stance (although in fairness it does suggest, at least in Rush Limbaugh's case, that there were not facts to substantiate the allegations). I think the Washington Post did a better job of cutting through the spin on the Qana conspiracy theories.
I guess I'm weird in that I didn't see any reason why the first set of pictures (the girls and the shells) needed to be explained. They seem pretty self-explanatory, and the acts depicted are quite mild and quite understandable given the circumstances. I don't think that anybody who viewed the pictures without a preconceived anti-Israel mindset would need the explanation, and those who do wouldn't buy the explanation. Funny how that works.
I'm also not sure why any reasonable person would need to be told that the lunatic conspiracy theories advanced in relation to Qana were... well, transparent nonsense. But then, even Readers Digest picked up the lunatic conspiracy theory from the start of the second Intifada that Mohammed Al-Dura was alive (despite his being killed on camera), and even one of the law professors at the Volokh Conspiracy seems to have lost his ability to engage in abstract reasoning over the Qana pictures.
Posted by Aaron on Thu 3 Aug 2006 at 06:48 PM