Al Reuters

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:50 am

So you think Reuters news service is only reporting the news?:

A Reuters employee has been suspended after sending a death threat to an American blogger.

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: \"I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut.\"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 34,00.html

Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 66,00.html

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:39 am

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 74,00.html

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:04 am

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... eirut&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ looks like it has a lot of this stuff. It's either a reposatory, or Reuters just sucks THAT bad (:lol:), or the website is really really good at finding these problems.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:04 am

This is a big deal?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:13 am

Zuruck wrote:This is a big deal?

Uh... yes? This isn't altering the color of a photo of Condi Rice and making her eyes look white as the sun, this is actually changing the contents of a scene, making it look far worse.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:43 am

the latter story about the doctoring of photos, that's been explained thus:

The two altered photographs were among 43 that Hajj filed directly to the Reuters Global Pictures Desk since the start of the conflict on July 12 rather than through an editor in Beirut, as was the case with the great majority of his images.

so it doesn't really seem like a big deal anymore - a mixup where a freelance photographer's entire photostream were BYPASSING editorial scrutany.

The death-threat employee (whoever he is/was) has been suspended, as he should be. It was a Reuters employee, but not in their news dept. (i wonder where then)

Both storys seem to be over

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:50 am

roid wrote:the latter story about the doctoring of photos, that's been explained thus:

The two altered photographs were among 43 that Hajj filed directly to the Reuters Global Pictures Desk since the start of the conflict on July 12 rather than through an editor in Beirut, as was the case with the great majority of his images.
...

So you are saying the only problem was that an editor didn't catch the doctored photo's?!?

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:54 am

yes?

it was a freelance photographer, they are supposed to be put through checks. This guy wasa bad egg that got through the cracks and now that it's all sorted out he's fired and the pictures have been recalled.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:01 am

Someone in the editorial food chain saw these photos and didn't flag them. The alteration is so obvious, I think there's a good chance whatever editor approved the images looked the other way.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:23 am

I was talking about the death threat.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:22 pm

roid wrote:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... eirut&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ looks like it has a lot of this stuff. It's either a reposatory, or Reuters just sucks THAT bad (:lol:), or the website is really really good at finding these problems.

Some of each. LGF was one of the main sites that blew the lid on the TANG/60 minutes forged memos. Whenever something questionable shows up, now, readers tend to send it right in there and it gets posted within a couple hours.

it doesn't really seem like a big deal anymore - a mixup where a freelance photographer's entire photostream were BYPASSING editorial scrutany

This particular photographer happens to be the guy who staged the Qana "massacre" photos (search LGF for "green helmet guy").

It wouldn't be a big deal if it just happened once, or with one guy. But it is a big deal because it happens with Reuters ALL THE TIME. See the first entry here.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:37 am

Perhaps the real news is not the manipulation of news to slant for a certain response but that there are bloggers out there keeping an eye on the guys who should be keeping an eye....

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:09 am

Wait...I just saw the picture...it's the extra smoke that has you guys up in your panties? I was waiting to see something gruesome...not an extra plume of black smoke....

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:30 pm

Zuruck wrote:an extra plume of black smoke....

... and duplicated buildings... and the fact that the same photographer posted numerous STAGED pictures of "rescue workers" (all the same guy, in different clothes) pulling bodies out of wreckage in Qana... and photos of the same bombed area with different dates trying to mislead people into thinking there were multiple strikes resulting in significant damage (see here)... and at least half a dozen other strange occurrences involving the same photographer.

You don't think it's a big deal that a major wire service spent weeks running modified (propaganda) photos from inside a war zone? Maybe your "big deal" meter needs recalibrated.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:30 pm

Zuruck wrote:Wait...I just saw the picture...it's the extra smoke that has you guys up in your panties? I was waiting to see something gruesome...not an extra plume of black smoke....

No, it isn't any particular doctored picture, it's the fact that a popular news agency would be so careless as to allow for its news photos to be manipulated.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:57 pm

Hmmm, maybe Reuters should hire Dan Rather to look into this.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:50 pm

For a summary of the current situation, especially why Reuters is fast becoming less-than-trusted, see zombietime.

Also recall that Reuters is the \"news\" agency that always puts scare quotes around the word \"terrorist\" because they want to remain \"neutral\". Yeah.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:33 am

woodchip wrote:Perhaps the real news is not the manipulation of news to slant for a certain response but that there are bloggers out there keeping an eye on the guys who should be keeping an eye....

it's great hey

.

culture++

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:40 am

roid wrote:
woodchip wrote:Perhaps the real news is not the manipulation of news to slant for a certain response but that there are bloggers out there keeping an eye on the guys who should be keeping an eye....
it's great hey .

culture++

I kinda wish that ++culture would be more correct, then we wouldn't have these journalistic fraud cases, or at least they wouldn't be as widespread.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:47 am

It's not near as big of a deal as the White House Environment Quality Secretary who doctored global warming reports and got busted and now works for Exxon. I read about the guy in National Geographic...funny that nobody here has heard or said much about that. Apparently this guy censored own government reports about what was going on and then releasing them to the public..was he fired when he was caught? Of course not...he just went and worked for the company reaping the benefits of this \"oil scare\"...

You guys don't like Reuters anyways so what's the big deal? If it were Fox News, I'm sure you'd be defending it or something...get over it.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:21 am

Zuruck wrote: You guys don't like Reuters anyways so what's the big deal? If it were Fox News, I'm sure you'd be defending it or something...get over it.

If it was Fox news you'd be ripping it a new one. so according to Zuruck's logic it ok to lie as long as it favors your stance. here's a lesson for you Zuruck lying is bad no matter who does it. so far the difference between Fox and Al-Rueters is HUGE, Fox gives a slant to the news as do all Legitimate news agencies, doesnt matter if you agree with it or not they do not create the story. Al-Rueters is Manufacturing the news, they are in the same catagory as CBS news is now, they only have credibility with the people and appoligists that want to believe their MANUFACTURED lies. they had a responibility to check out thier sources FULLY and they failed to do so. this is beyond poor journalism

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:49 pm

Why didn't you say anything about the White House guy doctoring reports?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:38 pm

Zuruck wrote:Why didn't you say anything about the White House guy doctoring reports?

well first off I wasnt aware of that, show me and then I'll respond.
Second this isn't about the Whitehouse. this is about a NEWS agency that used fabricated photo's that were pdroduced to intentinally inflame an already sensative and deadly situation in the middle east.
Third way to skirt my post and not respond to what I said. so are you agreeing with my assessment?

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:24 pm

CUDA wrote: well first off I wasnt aware of that, show me and then I'll respond.
Second this isn't about the Whitehouse. this is about a NEWS agency that used fabricated photo's that were pdroduced to intentinally inflame an already sensative and deadly situation in the middle east.
Third way to skirt my post and not respond to what I said. so are you agreeing with my assessment?

I agree cuda. Who cares about Whitehouse lies. Those are cute! But god forbid a single news agency adding fake smoke to a building already on fire!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:01 pm

Isaac wrote:
CUDA wrote: well first off I wasnt aware of that, show me and then I'll respond.
Second this isn't about the Whitehouse. this is about a NEWS agency that used fabricated photo's that were pdroduced to intentinally inflame an already sensative and deadly situation in the middle east.
Third way to skirt my post and not respond to what I said. so are you agreeing with my assessment?
I agree cuda. Who cares about Whitehouse lies. Those are cute! But god forbid a single news agency adding fake smoke to a building already on fire!

again this thread is about a news agency faking photo's trying to make Bush and this Whitehouse out to be the Anti-Christ will not change that topic. and as I stated show me and I will respond.

If you think all that Reuters posted was "a news agency adding fake smoke to a building already on fire" in a photo then you are as missinformed or an appoligist like Zuruck. there was reported to be up to a dozen or more different photos that were faked in different articles, not just the one

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:33 pm

Zuruck, changing the subject means you lose.

If you want to talk about some White House guy doctoring reports, start a thread about it. Here, we're talking about media forgeries attempting to sway public opinion over a war between one of our national allies and a terrorist organization. Stick to the topic. If you can't hang, don't change the subject, just admit you can't hang.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:48 pm

errr..
I think faking the news is bad!

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:16 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5289984.stm

Woops!!!!!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:27 am

Considering the enemy has used ambulances to move troops and weapons I'm surprised that simply marking a vehicle with \"PRESS\" would exempt it from being targeted!

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:55 am

my last name is PRESS. i think i'll keep my distance

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:52 pm

hrm...

Have any of you see the pictures? The ones I saw sure didn't look like a missile hit the vehicle.