Apologies are for thee but not for me.

If you genuinely want a look into the thoroughly twisted psyche of the neo-con, look no further than the frantic activity of the wankersphere over the last several hours, as right-wing wanks everywhere have been going absolutely ballistic over a clearly-doctored photo of Beirut.

Having gone thoroughly wingnut over the original pic, that same wankersphere is currently pounding itself on the back with congratulations now that Reuters has admitted that the shot was altered, and is withdrawing it. Which proves ... um, what exactly?

Wankers everywhere are howling with bloodlust over how they defeated the evil liberal media, but it's not clear what happened here. Given the compressed time frame, it's not at all outrageous to suppose that Reuters might have had the same response if someone had just politely emailed them and pointed out the obvious digital alteration. It's quite possible that the reaction might have been something like, "Oh, you're right, there is clearly something altered about that image, and we're going to get to the bottom of this. Thank you for bringing this to our attention."

Is there any reason to think it might have happened that way? No more than there's any reason to think it wouldn't have but if Reuters had responded with just a "Whoops, you're right," you and I both know there wouldn't have been a story. Which is why we have total wanks like Damian Penny (Canada's poster child for how to become a high-profile blogger while having no discernible talent whatsoever) writing:

REUTERS BLINKS

The news service has admitted one of its photos from Beirut was doctored with photo-editing software. The picture has been withdrawn.

Israel's Ynetnews.com gives LGF credit for the kill.

See, in Damian's world, Reuters was clearly trying to con us but, in the face of a concerted attack from the wingnut-o-sphere, they "blinked." It's not possible that it was just an honest mistake on the part of Reuters because then, no one could get credit for "the kill."

And all this cheering for smiting the forces of the biased mainstream media is, of course, coming from the same folks who, for the last five years, have swallowed every absurd idiocy coming out of the neo-con movement, in its entirety. Saddam and al-Qaeda, WMDs, yellowcake from Niger ... you name it, they bought it, hook, line and sinker. But give them one doctored photo and, holy shit, you are so fucking toast.

It's nice to see that Reuters owned up to the obvious deception. And me? I'm still waiting for those right-wing media warriors to admit they were totally snookered by Iran and badges and Jews (among so many other things). And you know what I think the chances are of that, don't you?

IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. In a funny way, the wingnut-o-sphere have painted themselves into an awkward corner here. See, the only way it makes sense for them to be crowing about having defeated the evil, liberal media is if they take the clear position that Reuters -- the news organization itself -- was deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead the public with that pic.

If it was just an honest mistake by Reuters to accept that image, then you would think it would be to Reuter's credit to have retracted it as quickly as it did, but then it wouldn't be that big a story, would it? So for the right-wing cheering to make any sense would suggest that the residents of Wankerville really and sincerely believe that Reuters was being dishonest.

Is that what they actually believe? Hey, Damian, is that what you think? Are you willing to take a stand and make that accusation? Because without that claim, then all the cheering is just one big circle jerk. (Like that's anything new in Wankerville.)

So how about it, Damian? Are you accusing the top-level editorial staff of Reuters of being deliberately dishonest? It's a simple question. And it deserves a simple answer, don't you think?