Reuters rides again
[ADDENDUM: Could it be that Reuters is finally concerned about its own dwindling reputation, if not the state of the Western World? Perhaps.
Reuters also said today it had put in place a tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict to 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, according to a Reuters spokeswoman.
Now if only they could do the same for their editorial policy, and their headlines.]
What?? A muslim stringer had his own agenda, passing off ‘doctored’ photos??
I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
(need I bother with a sacasm tag?)
I share your “shocked-ness”. Sarcasm tags not needed.
Once more…will it ever end…on many other web and blog sites this is coming down to a shouthing match between “right and left”. It’s not that for heaven’s sake. I care not at the end of the day what their politics or agenda was/is. What I want is for the ‘respected, professional’ news providers to do just that…provide me with the news. Not the altered news, not the news that matches what they want me to think, not the photos that seemingly verifies their own opinions. Just the black and white, unvarnished facts. They keep getting caught, my distrust grows, and the shenanigans just drive me more towards the opposite view they are trying to force feed me. And when caught, red handed and red faced, the MSN just cries more shrilly that I am being ‘influenced’ by ametaeurs and need to get back on board with the mush they portray as facts.
ginger:
I’m with you. The “methinks they doth protest too much” syndrome of the MSM (blaming the “amateurs” of the blogosphere) when caught with their pants down only serves to make me want to discount anything they say, show, or print…which does ALL of us a disservice. Because when trust is gone, and it’s difficult to know whom to believe, the tendency is to believe NOBODY—and that’s almost as bad as believing the MSM’s lies.
Amen. Over at the Digg site, where Malkins report is climbing the lists, I bowed out. There is no discussion allowed these days. It’s Rush’s fault, it’s O’Reilley’s fault, it’s Malkin and LGF’s fault. And most of all, it is the brainwashed, non-thinking neocon’s fault! It’s every damn person’s fault except whose fault it really is…in this case Reuters. For heaven’s sake, it is a plain as the nose on their face….THE PICTURED WAS PHOTOSHOPPED! But, hey, that seems to be forgiveable and once again, everyone else is to blame. It is simply crazy these days isn’t it? Or am I the only one who sits here reading, slack jawed and simply shaking my head?
Slack jawed and shaking…yep, that’s us.
I teach advanced Photoshop — The Reuters’ photos were really bad fakes.
FoxNews is the most trusted news agency out there, amazing.
Nyomythus,
I will admit to a strong preference to Fox these days….and will admit they seem to be more in tune with how I personally see things than other sources. But please, they are not the most trustworthy! None of them are so these days. Do they more closely mirror my feelings…yes. Do they have an agenda as well? Of course! If my tv is on, is it tuned to Fox or CNN? Easy answer. But I also spend several hours a day online doing my own research and sleuthing. And make time each day to watch them all. A single diet of Fox is just as dangerous as CNN. (But I will allow that Fox has been offering decent coverage of the current Reuters mess…and no one else seems to be.)It’s not easy these days to know what is force fed and what is true. Takes some time on everyone’s part to settle on that…and it changes even then hourly.
Reuters has been baiting Jews for a long time now…..
Your opinion of that may be correct….you’d have to really show something to convince that is the reason for this latest fiasco. The issue, as I see it, is not ‘the jews’ and whether they are being baited. The issue is telling the truth, and in Reuters case, selling the truth.
Hey ginger — from my blogroll alone you’ll see the suggestion that I like to hear from a variety of news sources. You are correct.
Ginger wrote:
“The issue is telling the truth, and in Reuters case, selling the truth.”
Other than the photos – what evidence would you offer for this claim?
Thanks Ginger…
uhm…..what evidence would I offer for what? That the issue at hand is telling the truth? Journalism 101 provides that answer I would think. Other than the photos (which are the springboard for all of this) I would offer very misleading captions on many other entries. Like the picture of a man ‘running’ from a building, which the caption states ‘bombed overnight’. The photo taken with bright sun and blue sky. So, why is he ‘running’ if it was bombed ‘overnight’ and why is his white shirt and hat very, very clean….if he had just been bombed as the caption implies. It is not just doctoring or staging photos, it’s also the ‘editorial’ slant given to captions. Yahmir, do 5 minutes worth of searching/reading on this. The issue is that I expect the ‘news’ to give me the truth. Nothing else, just the plain old truth….and let me decide. Tainted information is worse than none at all in many cases….wouldn’t you agree?
I suppose in the sense of allowing muslim stringers to submit with no questions asked photos that can inflame hatred, like in, ah, more smoke = more hatred, one could call it Jew baiting, in conjunction with many, many other slanted headlines that always cast Israel in the dark. Kikes Kill Kountless muslim women, cripples, children and nursing home residents – much of Reuters says that and you darn well know it.
Where did the word “stringer” come from? I don’t get it.
I suppose I could spend a few moments trying to locate that info for you…but, hey, if you don’t get it, then you could do the same. 🙂 To me it has always meant someone who is not actually ’employed’ by an agency, but follows/stings along, hoping to get a great shot that the ‘agency’ will want to buy. i.e. an independant photographer/reporter stringing along hoping for a big break? But regardless, employed or stringer, “truth in advertising” needs to be enforced and the issue here, as I see it, is not what is actually happening, but what we are being shown is happening…regardless of the FACTS. When news orginizations and journalists slant the news, to whatever side, we all lose. Sadly, those of us who were raised on ‘if Reuters, CBS, The Telegraph’ whatever, says/prints/shows it then it must be the truth, are these days learning a difficult lesson…..sometimes, they outright lie! My Granny lies spinning in her grave, and I find myself so distrustful of anything I see coming off a once ‘respected’ wire.
So where do you go for the truth ginger – that source(or sources) where you never have to question the info your getting – a basttion of truth, integrity and the American way….
Let me know.