Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war

[August]

I wondered about the reporting by these "respected and unimpeachable" news organizations. I guess in truth they're as biasedas anyone else:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...286966,00.html

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged

[Fish]

I wonder if not a part of those cicvilian deads in Libanon are just hezbolla fighters, they don't carry uniforms. Look here.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...007220,00.html

[STEED]

You will never get 100% truth in the news.


News speak 1984

[tycho102]

There's a tremendous amount of deception going on, with all the OId Media outlets. Part of this stems from the fact that journalists all over the world would be executed if they actually reported the truth, in the countries where they were reporting.

It's a hideous cycle. The first reporting agency that starts reporting the truth will get kicked out (or outright murdered), and it'll be that one amoral agency that doesn't care who is getting gassed or murdered, that gets the "news stories" out of an otherwise closed nation.

Exclusive stories make and break a reporting agency. And if it's a rival getting the exclusives, you're going to go under unless you "compromise".

I think this is Reuters' way of letting folks know that they, Reuters, control the news. The NY Times and CBS news also have done this in the recent past. They hurt their objectiveness in the eyes of the public whom they claim to represent.

I don't know what causes the abuses of the trust which is given news organizations. Is it the fact that all are in business for profit, and as a corrilary the pressure to make a scoop? Is it an idealogical paradigm, and the very human desire to hire people 'lke me'? Is it the, also very human desire to trust, the news services to provide an unbiased picture of what is happening while being more interested in the sports available on the TV 24 and 7, while demanding more caretaking by their Gov'ts, what was known as 'bread and circus' during the time of Rome?

I, for one, look to many sources for information. One reason I keep coming back to this forum.

[Yahoshua]

I suppose we could tie it all to the upbringing we were taught in the givernment institutions aka "Public School." In where we are taught to obey our teachers and governing authorities without question. Same with our parents. We are taught how to do things but nowadays we are rarely taught WHY we do it in a certain way.

I would blame this sort of blind faith as being the source of naievete that has become commonplace in the U.S. Now with the advent of bloggers, people are waking up and are turning to other outlets for their news. People with no real agenda other than for the facts on the ground as they find them.

Contrast this with the mega-corporation news outlets and the news anchor who gets $100 million a year and tells you what is news and what isn't, or the blue-collar blogger who earns $50k a year who tells you what is happening and where it happened. (how's that for a run-on sentence? ). Who would people be more willing to trust if they make mistakes? And who would they retaliate more harshly against for trying to cover it up?

[August]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

People with no real agenda other than for the facts on the ground as they find them.

But they can be problematic as well. How do we really know that these people have no agenda? Bloggers, for the most part, operate under the cloak of internet anonymity so, unlike the professional journalist, we can't even tell, again for the most part, whether they are who they say they are.

I think blogging is an instution that is the answer to a propagandists dreams. That is not to say that all or even most bloggers have ulterior motives, but it can certainly provide fertle ground to spread disinformation.

[Happy Times]

"What Really Happens Pallywood" http://www.break.com/movies/what_rea...pallywood.html

[TteFAboB]

Hey, didn't we had someone criticizing August for not worshipping Reuters?

Time is running, he who laughs last, laughs better.

[August]

All i wanted to know is why in every casualty total of Palestinian or Lebanese casualties the numbers of fighters vs civilians are never broken down like Israeli casualties are.

I suspect, that given this and the above cited article, that Reuters and other western news organizations are being used as a propaganda outlet by the Arabs.

[Yahoshua]

"But they can be problematic as well. How do we really know that these people have no agenda? Bloggers, for the most part, operate under the cloak of internet anonymity so, unlike the professional journalist, we can't even tell, again for the most part, whether they are who they say they are."

Good points, and those issues are always something to consider when reading something that is handed out to us from a "reputable" news outlet, and we should expect the same from bloggers: Honesty and Transparency.

If we don't know who they are, they will not have a crowd for long.

"I think blogging is an instution that is the answer to a propagandists dreams. That is not to say that all or even most bloggers have ulterior motives, but it can certainly provide fertle ground to spread disinformation."

Yep. But just replace the word blogger with any of the big corporations and the same thing can be said about them. I guess I'm looking more along future lines where we as a population either move away from the large corporations and towards bloggers. Or we break the companies down into the points of view they really hold.

For example in France, there is a Communist newspaper, a Socialist newspaper, a Unionist paper, etc. Each newspaper reports events from their point of view and everybody knows it. Perhaps this may in fact be the answer to our larger corporations instead of carrying on this charade of honesty when they are being proven to be outright liars at times with no clear-cut agenda.

And perhaps I should've re-phrased my use of the word "agenda." All of us have an agenda, but it is the difference between eachother as to whether we allow that agenda to influence our work or not. I guess that's more of what I was trying to say in my last post.

[bradclark1]

We can start a "Dishonesty in Truth" annual award and make Reuters the first recpient. Make it a gold leafed roll of toilet paper.

[LoBlo]

The thing about bloggers is that they are absolutely influenced by personal agendas as anyone else. One or two people will obviously have personal political views (as everyone has) choosing what to report and what not to report, based on what they feel like reporting. How is that more "agenda proof" than any other source? Its not any better than any large news organizations.

What a blogger is free from is time/space compromising. A large news organization only has an 1/2 hour to report all the "worlds news" and a newspaper only have a few pages to put all the news in. So "news" competes with other news for reporting space, whatever is most eye-catching goes in... the rest is left out.

A blogger doesn't have those time/slot or article length restrictions so news items don't "compete" for attention as much IMHO, freeing them up from that pressure. But they are absolutely as influenced by personal agendas, probably more so.

[tycho102]

All news reporting has to be biased. There's just not time or room to "report" 10,000 stories. So everyone ends up either trying to find an agency that has the bias they are looking for, or they end up trying to convert all the other agencies to fit their bias.

Besides all this, Reuters is French, and France has sided with the jihadists since Charles DeGaulle decided they would. When I want to see jihadist propaganda, I specifically go looking at Reuters photos (usually via CNN or Yahoo). AP and AFP also play ball with the local dictators, but not to the same level as Reuters.


Man, either way, photoshopping photos is U. A. (Un-Authorized). I don't care what the bias is, liberal or warmongerish. Don't photoshop photos. Don't Premiere (or Ulead's Mediastudio) video.

[bradclark1]

Man, either way, photoshopping photos is U. A. (Un-Authorized). I don't care what the bias is, liberal or warmongerish. Don't photoshop photos. Don't Premiere (or Ulead's Mediastudio) video

Does that mean they can use Paint Shop Pro?