<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>informage: Standard Skulduggery</title>
    <link>http://informage.net/articles/2003/05/15/standard-skulduggery</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>tales from anglospheric la-la-land</description>
    <item>
      <title>Standard Skulduggery</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I don't know how well discussed this has been back in blighty, but apparently The London Evening Standard are denying that a front-page photo of "Jubilation on the streets of Baghdad" was heavily doctored. &lt;a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,949434,00.html" target="_blank"&gt;The Guardian article&lt;/a&gt; runs with the Standard line. Pun definitely intended.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
So I took a look at &lt;a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/evening-standard-crowd.htm" target="_blank"&gt;the evidence&lt;/a&gt; and it looks cut and dry to me. In fact I spotted the guy in sunglasses who's repeated just from looking at the original photo. It's pretty much cut, paste and dried in fact.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
No doubt this kind of doctoring has been going on since The Paleolithic Post, so here's a small victory for the net that deception like this gets some decent exposure these days.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2003 11:31:55 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:781e1c739914c87d315161991081c340</guid>
      <author>sean</author>
      <link>http://informage.net/articles/2003/05/15/standard-skulduggery</link>
      <category>worldage</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://informage.net/articles/trackback/91</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
