I Wear T. Shirts

There are several images of a plane being shot down over Benghazi in Libya that have been all over the internet and news sites for the past day or so.  Here is one:

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Picture-165.png

They are incredibly compelling and I understand the impulse to use them and write about them.  The only problem is, no one seems to know exactly what they are images of.  I tend to believe this story from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-benghazi-jet-idUSTRE72I2XM20110319

Why would a rebel leader admit that the plane was actually shot down by friendly fire? He’s on the ground and admitting a huge error, I would think he’s pretty damn sure before telling something like that to Reuters.  Also, it’s Reuters which I think is a darn reliable source of well-written and researched news.

Now on to the LESS well researched news!

I first noticed the image here on The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2734/1/

Where it’s the first image in a photo gallery.  A photo gallery!  Because nothing says pageviews like human suffering.  What’s so egregious to me about the usage of this image in this context is, ok - you’re using it in a photo gallery which is GENERALLY a cheap ploy to drive clicks.  Fine, you know what? There are worse things you can do in the world.  But IF you’re going to use pictures of people dying (there was a pilot in that plane, you know) then please, please do your readers and the human beings in that image some justice and figure out what the picture is of?

I mean, Jesus, that caption reads like it’s written by a ten year old.  And the jet is Libyan? What does that mean?  It’s a civil war, they’re all Libyan.  It’s a rebel jet.  And was it ‘shut down’ or ‘shot down’.  It’s either a typo or a stupidly casual way to describe the image.  Either way it’s sloppy, lazy and disrespectful.  Please don’t click any further into the gallery and justify this garbage.

This is just one example of the terrible journalism around this one photo.  Here’s another: http://www.smh.com.au/world/battle-for-benghazi-20110319-1c1cj.html

I mean, not only is the writing on the photos pretty crude, the caption is just wrong.  And the article totally skirts the question of WHAT AM I SEEING IN THIS IMAGE YOU WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT? 

I get that it’s difficult to write about something as chaotic as a civil war in a Middle Eastern country where misinformation and government lies are a fact of life.  But any journalist worth their salt understands this fact and also his or her job to make sense of the mess, be guileless in their writing and to vet any information before it’s delivered.  This is what happens when people who are not journalists but click-whores have a meaningful say in how people interpret the news. 

Sorry to get self-righteous and angry on a Sunday morning but I can’t stand this shit. I happen to to have great respect for real journalists and am pretty disgusted by the frauds.