So he published it here.
...the last time I wrote a letter to the editor was June 10th. I didn’t really think they’d publish it, but hope springs eternal. The letter read: “The Times should be ashamed. On page 18A of today’s paper, the photo of the weeping Palestinian girl was clearly staged. It was about as spontaneous as a Hollywood movie. It’s obvious that the photographer had to be standing on a stepladder in order to have gotten that impossible angle. That it was a phony piece of propaganda was apparent even before I noticed your source was the Ramatan News Agency.”
The Süd Deutsche newspaper undertook some research, and found a few more problems with the photos. Not only were they staged, but so was the entire event.
...They reported that, although a barrage of Israeli shells had supposedly just killed seven members of the Ghalia family, dozens of people were to be seen standing around in the background, not fleeing for their lives, but looking on as people will invariably do when a movie is being shot. Apparently, a man who is “dead” in one photo, is seen in later photos standing nearby with a rifle. Well, sometimes even in our movies, extras are called upon to do double-duty.
The girl in the photo, Hadil, pictured grieving over the body of her dead father, was allegedly spared a similar fate only because she was swimming in the water at the time. Yet, in the now famous photo, she is dry as a bone and fully clothed. And her father, who was supposedly killed by Israeli shells is pictured lying peacefully on his back, neither wounded nor bloody.
The photographer, Zakaria Abu Irbad, claims he just happened to be the first person on the scene…and yet most of the other bodies are covered in white sheets. Who covered them, Sued Deutsche wonders, and where did the sheets come from?
Of the L.A. Times, Prelusky writes:
It’s bad enough that the L.A. Times ran the photo and didn’t run my letter. But what’s even worse is that they won’t run the truth even now.
OK, maybe the LA Times isn't necessarily biased toward the left. But there is one bias that explains this sort of story, as well as a great deal of media coverage of national and international events.
One of the biases that permeates the political Left is a bias against the powerful. In the world of the Left, the underdog is always right – morally, ethically, and legally. Period.
If the underdog does something that violates moral, ethical, or legal standards, they're given a pass. After all, they're less powerful, and therefore oppressed. Therefore, the Left will Understand anything they do.
This bias, as I say, explains a great deal of press coverage. Now, I suppose it's possible to hold this bias without being solidly anchored in the political Left, but I can't think of any examples right off the top of my head.