Posted on 08/07/2006 7:52:41 PM PDT by AmericanMade1776
Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj from its database after establishing that he had altered another image. By Julia Day. Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj from its database after establishing that he had altered not one, but two, images since the start of the conflict between Israel and the Lebanon.
The news agency has also instituted "a tighter editing procedure" for images of the war in the Middle East conflict after what it calls "the gravest breach" of Reuters standards.
Reuters' new procedure will "ensure that no photograph from the region would be transmitted to subscribers without review by the most senior editor on the Reuters global pictures desk".
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.
"Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy."
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzle.com ...
Finally! I remember Paul Conrad using Jesus Christ on the Cross back in the 1980s to damn President Reagan's policies in Central America. I called the son of a bitch on the phone and chewed him out. The paper was rabidly left then and it should have gone down long before now.
Robert Sheer's columns were some of the most rabidly leftist diatribes I've read in my life. He was meat and potatoes for the the Los Angeles Times.
This is why I've called the paper Pravda on the Pacific for the couple of decades.
I am surprised anyone would read these propaganda sheets.
Well, that's a time-honored journalistic tradition. ;-)
With the media, as with any other consumer product, caveat emptor.
Unless it feeds some personal need, I'd agree. I couldn't do it.
Some sober analysis of the situation:
Exploiting the Reuters incident
It is indisputably wrong for a media outlet to alter photographs or other information so as to falsely represent what is being reported. That is beyond dispute. Yet for three straight days now (and still going strong), the right-wing blogosphere has been wallowing in a self-celebratory swarm because two photographs taken in Lebanon and published by Reuters were found to have been altered using Photoshop by the freelance photographer who submitted them. Rush Limbaugh has now joined the party, decreeing that "Reuters ought to be investigated." (The frequency with which Bush supporters call for media organizations to be investigated because of what they report is itself notable.)
Given the intensity and duration of the blogospheric mob scene fueled by the Reuters discovery, one would think that this event demonstrates some sort of important point beyond the particular photographer's poor judgment or deliberate deceit. But it is difficult to see what the point might be, to put it mildly.
The alterations made to the original Beirut photograph appear to have increased the amount of smoke one sees in the photo, taken after a Beirut bombing raid, but the amount of smoke in the original unaltered photograph is itself quite substantial. Israel really is bombing Lebanon; buildings really are being destroyed; many Lebanese civilians really are dying; and nobody who is serious disputes any of that.
These excited bloggers seem to be using the Reuters incident to try to "prove" that the dreaded "mainstream media" -- and Reuters has long been a special target for many extremists on the right (who sometimes refer to it as "al-Reuters") -- is hopelessly biased against Israel and in favor of Islamic terrorists, including Hezbollah, and that nothing the MSM reports about this war, or anything else for that matter, can be trusted. Many of these bloggers appear to hope that this incident will call into question the reliability of all reporting on the war outside of YTNews and Fox, including what happened in Qana, Lebanon, and any reports that reflect negatively on the Israeli war effort.
But Reuters hardly has a monopoly on scandals of this sort. Quite the contrary, examples of photographic alterations and political distortions of evidence are abundant. The blogger TBogg today documents two instances of photographic manipulation -- one from the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, which cloned members of the military in the audience while the president was speaking, and another that used Photoshop to falsely depict John Kerry at an antiwar rally next to Jane Fonda.
And then there was the complete misquoting by Fox News' Carl Cameron of John Kerry at the height of the 2004 campaign:
"Move over Dan Rather, Fox News' Carl Cameron is joining you in the hoaxer hall of shame. Fox News' Web site posted a story written by its top political reporter yesterday with made-up quotes that painted Democratic presidential contender John Kerry as a spa-going girly-man."
Ironically, one of the anti-Reuters lynch mob leaders, Little Green Footballs, defended Fox's publication of false Kerry quotes by arguing that Fox "pulled the article down and apologized for it the same day. That is, of course, how a responsible news organization handles a situation like this" (emphasis added). That, of course, is precisely what Reuters did with the altered photographs. In fact, the agency went much further by removing all of the photographs and announcing it will never use that photographer again. Fox, by contrast, refused to remove Cameron from covering the Kerry campaign and continues to employ him. Worse, Fox excused itself by claiming that publication of the fake quotes "occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."
And then there is the still-unsolved mystery of the identity of the pro-Iraq war advocates who created forged documents purporting to prove that Iraq sought 500 tons of uranium oxide ("yellow cake") from Niger -- complete fiction that made its way into Senate and presidential briefings, and then into the president's State of the Union address, helping to sell the invasion of Iraq.
By all means, misleading photographs and other fabrications should be documented and exposed. But such scandals typically reflect little about anything beyond the culpable individuals involved.
-- Glenn Greenwald
But they do. Since you are so clever why do you think that is? Any theories?
You are out of your league here. Reuters disseminates anti Israel stories and photos and probably video. Many people say this, not just me and have been saying so for a few years
As far as what Reuters does outside of Israel I don't know or pay attention.
You miss the point completely. Altered photos are important but small in number. The pro-Jihad staged photos are more numerous and Reuters has gleefully disseminated these for years. Same for anti Israel photos.
Look at the photo credits. They are mostly Arab Muslim
Do I agree that the yellow cake story is complete fiction?
Is that the question? Or is the question do I believe the documents were forged? Or do I believe that the false intelligence made it into Senate briefings and the State of the Union Address?
Well, the answer to all of them is that Bush admitted that his State of the Union statement ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa") was incorrect and based on bad intelligence. The documents have been shwon to be forgeries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56336-2003Jul14?language=printer
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/whondef.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery
http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_07/alia/a3071307.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92659,00.html
President Bush doesn't disagree though. That is why he retracted his statement and admitted it should not have been in the State of the Union speech.
The IAEA also concurs that the documetns were forged.
The Butler Review, which is what I assume you speak of, concluded that Iraq must have sought uranium from Nigeria because an Iraqi diplomat visited Niger in 1999. Their conclusion was based on the fact that 3/4ths of Niger's exports is (was) uranium. The Butler Review admits that the documents were forged, though, instead basing its conclusion on the diplomatic mission alone.
To quote the report directly, "The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."
Here is a copy of it for your own reading:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Butler%20Report.pdf
As for my "asine" defense of Reuters, I stand by it. No one, not a single person, has discredited a word I have said (and have only resorted to ad hominen attacks such as yours). The simple fact of the matter is that once it was discovered that these photographs were doctored, Reuters removed them from their website, issued a retraction, severed all contacts with the free-lance photographer, and deleted all of his photographs from their database.
Had Reuters not done this, most FR would be calling for this very action. But that is excatly what Reuters did. So, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The problem with your thinking is that destroying evidence is the "right thing to do". Destroying evidence is what Reuters did when they purged the database of all pictures from the photographer. It also makes it impossible for them to provide additional evidence that the photographer was fired for just cause, meaning that if the photographer sues, Reuters may have to hire him back.
"Well, the answer to all of them is that Bush admitted that his State of the Union statement ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa") was incorrect and based on bad intelligence. The documents have been shwon to be forgeries."
Let me correct the record for you now that the investigations have concluded.
One document was shown to be forged. It was not used in the British evaluation.
The President said that some intelligence was wrong. He did not tie it to any specific event or events.
The President did not say that what he said in the State of the Union Address "was incorrect and based on bad intelligence." He said that he should have used intelligence from our CIA rather than use British intelligence in the State of the Union.
One last item. There were at least 5 committees that looked into the British intelligence and all determined that it was correct.
The 'grave breach' was getting caught.
Can't have that.
L
He's out!
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.