BBC admits falsifying photo captions

**Lenny** · 06-20-2009, 12:29 PM

What really happened

Steve Herrmann | 16:58 PM, Friday, 19 June 2009

The crisis over the Iranian election has been our lead story for most of the week. As with all our coverage, we have been careful to report what both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters are saying. Similarly, we have taken care to label the pictures we use, explaining what they are of.

However, on Wednesday 17 June we made a mistake in a picture caption published on BBC News online. In the story "Obama refuses to 'meddle' in Iran", we mistakenly stated that a Getty agency picture of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally was a pro-Mousavi rally.

Some blogs, including WhatReallyhappened.com, are pointing out that the LA Times used a similar photograph which showed President Ahmadinejad waving to supporters. The Getty pictures we received did not show Mr Ahmadinejad.

When a reader contacted us about it, we checked our caption and corrected it. We're sorry for the mistake and have added a note explaining the correction to the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._happened.html

This was a typical tactic of the communists in bygone days; to falsify the captions of photos so as to put forward the exact opposite meaning.

No one reads these mea-culpas, so the propaganda-value is not lost by days-later "admittances that we made a minor mistake."

**Loki** · 06-20-2009, 12:37 PM

Evidence of BBC being used as a propaganda tool.

**F.M.S. Panzerfaust** · 06-22-2009, 03:37 PM

The green revolution is artificial. Like the orange revolution in Ukraine, it was created by the US government and Israel to overthrown a government hostile to its policies.

**Lenny** · 06-22-2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by F.M.S. Panzerfaust

The green revolution is artificial. Like the orange revolution in Ukraine, it was created by the US government and Israel to overthrown a government hostile to its policies.

The Green Revolution? You mean the advancements in agriculture technology that have allowed India to avoid mass starvation?

That's the only Green Revolution I'm aware of.

What is the other?

**Thorum** · 06-22-2009, 04:00 PM

Interesting. The BBC made a mistake on a photo caption, corrected it, posted the correction and the conspiracies start flying...You know what? Big deal.

**Lenny** · 06-22-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Thorum

Interesting. The BBC made a mistake on a photo caption, corrected it, posted the correction and the conspiracies start flying...You know what? Big deal.

Why would they have captioned-it/run-it at all if they had no idea what the photo was?

**Loki** · 06-22-2009, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Lenny

Why would they have captioned-it/run-it at all if they had no idea what the photo was?

Yes, the only reason why they admitted a "mistake", is because they've been caught out and had to save face.

**Thorum** · 06-22-2009, 04:37 PM

OK. So the BBC purposely misled and lied to the public why? How was this photo of any importance?

I have noticed here (Apricity) alot of anti-BBC comments and have never commented on it. In my American perspective (naive perhaps too), I have always had huge respect for the BBC and have listened to BBC broadcasts since my late teen years. I am also the type of person (as are most people here) that is skeptical of news (and especially conspiracy theories) until I have touched on a few sources first. I try to keep an open mind and not label media (or people) but simply observe them and learn from them. I am not always successful though...

Can some of you give me your opinions on BBC itself as a news organization?

EDIT: I forgot to ask where does the BBC admit to "falsifying" photo captions?

**~~SwordoftheVistula~~** · 06-23-2009, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Thorum

OK. So the BBC purposely misled and lied to the public why? How was this photo of any importance?

The liberal/neocon storyline is that Ahmedinijad 'stole the election' and that there is a mass wave of public outcry and protest against this, that the people support Mousavi and Ahmedinijad is only hanging onto power by brute force. So labeling a pro-Ahmedinijad rally as 'pro-Mousavi' both conceals popular support for Ahmedinijad and helps create the illusion of popular support for Mousavi.

**Groenewolf** · 06-23-2009, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula

The liberal/neocon storyline is that Ahmedinijad 'stole the election' and that there is a mass wave of public outcry and protest against this, that the people support Mousavi and Ahmedinijad is only hanging onto power by brute force. So labeling a pro-Ahmedinijad rally as 'pro-Mousavi' both conceals popular support for Ahmedinijad and helps create the illusion of popular support for Mousavi.

Mousavi is the other aproved candidate?