When were the faked photos you mention done? I was at a UBF conference in Michigan in the late 80s or early 90s when I saw them fake a photo.

The auditorium was big enough for 600, but there were only two-thirds that many people there before the meeting started. They were sitting mostly in the middle of the room and were all bunched together. I was standing near the stage and noticed that a couple of missionaries were going around and making people move to different seats. The missionaries had them sit in alternate rows and spread out across the room in the rows.

At first I couldn't understand why they made everyone sit somewhere else, but I figured it out in a flash (flash bulb, that is!). A photographer came in and started taking pictures. From where I was standing at the front of the room, I noticed that the photos would like the room was filled to capacity when it actually wasn't.

Which pictures are you talking about? Was it something like this, or were they pictures which were PhotoShopped?

I once attended a MSU conference so I remember how they carefully arranged the seating so that it looked fuller and more decorative, and the foreign guests had to sit in special rows etc.

But I am talking about the famous faked photo that was published on the title page of the UBF newsletter around 2000 (shortly before the reform, and mentioned in the letter with 15 questions to Samuel Lee). It was either photoshopped or simply a traditional cut+paste photomontage. On the photo, the hall had an additional third gallery filled with attendants that does not exist in reality. The fake was of course ordered by Samuel Lee.

You were at the same conferences I was at. They, under orders from Lee, actually roped off or taped off every other row in the auditorium at MSU so that people would sit in alternate rows.

The doctored photo of the Wharton Auditorium from a 1999 UBF newsletter can be viewed at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzep458t/teamubfhq/art/msuFake.jpg . This was the work of someone named Paul Choi, acting under Lee's orders, as always. Choi was also responsible for this in another newsletter. I guess he didn't have access to Photoshop at that time.

The doctored photo issue was the second of the 15 questions to Lee from 2000-2001.

After the faked MSU photo became an issue, I think they republished the same newsletter with a caption under the faked photo that read "(the artwork of Paul Choi)", an attempt to pass the blame off on Choi or to try to pass it off as some kind of joke.

A previous comment on the faked photo is at http://community.livejournal.com/rsqubf/84987.html?thread=470267#t470267 .

Reuters did write "We are sorry for any inconvience." However, they did not admit to being wrong for publishing the photo. Reminds me of the UBF "apologies" in which they make vague statements to have made mistakes in the past.

Does Reuters think that the bloggers who pointed out the doctored photo are angry and bitter people who should stop bothering them?

Here is another faked image that was published by Reuters.

"News organization withdraws photograph of Israeli fighter jet, admits image was doctored, fires photographer. Reuters pledges 'tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict'"

UBF could learn from Reuters. Reuters admitted their mistakes, dismissed the offender, and pledged to increased their editing to prevent such mistakes in the future. Reuters still needs to apologize to their readers.

UBF could take great steps toward legitimacy of they would admit their abusive deceptive practices (openly, clearly, and publicly), dismiss the leading abusers, and make efforts to prevent such abuse and deception in the future.

The difference between Reuters and UBF's fake are that Reuters did not publish the fakes on intent, but because they resorted to biased external photographers and did not thoroughly check what they got from them. (Both probably for reasons of economy). In UBF however, the fakes where made intentionally as ordered by the UBF boss. The UBF newsletter was not intended as a news source about what really happenes in UBF, but as a propaganda instrument.

The difference between Reuters and UBF's fake are that Reuters did not publish the fakes on intent, but because they resorted to biased external photographers and did not thoroughly check what they got from them.

Reuters intentions are debatable, but at this point I will give the benefit of the doubt that they do not have an agenda. There are plenty of newssources with baised agendas that impact their publications. Nevertheless, Reuters took responsibility for the mistakes when they were exposed.

So, are UBF leaders more comparable to the photographer?