Skip to comments.
Reuters Purges Photo Database
Buzzle.com ^
| 8/7/2006
Posted on 08/07/2006 7:52:41 PM PDT by AmericanMade1776
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Just liked the title...Reuters purges Photo Database.
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: AmericanMade1776
I love the information age don't you They can't fool us anymore and they are getting as desperate as the Hezboes
3
posted on
08/07/2006 7:55:22 PM PDT
by
al baby
To: AmericanMade1776
I have to purge after seeing most Reuters articles, pictures included or not.
4
posted on
08/07/2006 7:55:44 PM PDT
by
alancarp
(NASCAR: Always turning left, but can never keep up with the Liber-commis.)
To: AmericanMade1776
First Reuters binges, gets caught, then purges.
To: wolf24
I am sure that someone out there has made a collection of
Adnan Hajj' fake photos, they will come back to haunt Reuters, time and time again.
To: AmericanMade1776
They are running the shredders! Just like Enron. ;-)
7
posted on
08/07/2006 7:59:57 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: AmericanMade1776
Has anybody been able to scan all the pics from the Photoshop Photographer?
8
posted on
08/07/2006 8:04:49 PM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: AmericanMade1776
Reuters needs to have its feet held firmly to the fire, with or without extra smoke. Who was the photo editor who reviewed the questionable photos and allowed them to be published? He or she is either totally incompetent or a shill for terrorists. In the first case, a firing is in order. In the second, a firing squad might be more appropriate.
9
posted on
08/07/2006 8:05:23 PM PDT
by
TruthShallSetYouFree
(Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
To: wolf24; AmericanMade1776
The guys at Powerline asked the question---does this mean that access of the photos will be denied and thus, scrutiny will be prevented?
If so, this is a problem.
One can see archived copies of almost any page by entering the address at www.archive.org
I use it quite often. The pictures on any given page usually remain, even if the thumbnail link to the picture shows up as the dreaded "red X".
10
posted on
08/07/2006 8:06:35 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(I have the body of an eighteen year old. I keep it in the fridge.)
To: AmericanMade1776
Sweeping the evidence under the rug?
11
posted on
08/07/2006 8:12:46 PM PDT
by
TaxRelief
(Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
To: AmericanMade1776
"Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj .."
Correction:
Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based Hizbullah propaganda officer Adnan Hajj
Fixed it.
12
posted on
08/07/2006 8:13:50 PM PDT
by
Jameison
To: AmericanMade1776
what it calls "the gravest breach" of Reuters standardsReuters has standards? Wow. Now THAT'S news!
13
posted on
08/07/2006 8:14:59 PM PDT
by
hsalaw
To: AmericanMade1776
I managed to get this little nugget off before they purged the database.
To: AmericanMade1776
Adnan Hajj will go into the Liars Hall of Fame right next to Baghdad Bob.
15
posted on
08/07/2006 8:29:40 PM PDT
by
Palladin
(Ad in Hezbollah Herald: Human Shields wanted. Free housing.)
To: Arnold Zephel
16
posted on
08/07/2006 8:30:25 PM PDT
by
Palladin
(Ad in Hezbollah Herald: Human Shields wanted. Free housing.)
To: AmericanMade1776
Jason Blair, Adnan Hajj, Dan Rather.
17
posted on
08/07/2006 8:31:14 PM PDT
by
ChadGore
(VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
To: AmericanMade1776
Doctoring photos is "bad" at Reuters, but "staging" them is still OK.
18
posted on
08/07/2006 8:31:50 PM PDT
by
D-Chivas
To: wolf24
OK, so I need someone to explain this one to me. Reuters admits that these photographs were doctored and then did the right thing by firing the photographer and deleting the photographs from its database. Instead of lauding Reuters for doing the right thing, I see nothing but condescension. I really don't get it.
To: AmericanMade1776
Tom Szlukovenyi, the Reuters global picture editor said: "There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image.
How about deliberate
STAGING a photograph?
Is that still O.K.?
See also from
littlegreenfootballs.com:
sunday, august 28, 2005How Phony Can They Get?
Heres a touching scene, featuring Cindy Sheehan and the Reverend Al Sharpton, in front of crosses, looking solemn and sad.
Now lets zoom out and see the media swarm around this manufactured event:
(Hat tip: Bill P.)
20
posted on
08/07/2006 8:39:12 PM PDT
by
RonDog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson