Skip to comments.Reuters drops freelance Lebanese photographer over image
Posted on 08/06/2006 2:51:43 PM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia
LONDON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Reuters, the global news and information agency, told a freelance Lebanese photographer on Sunday it would not use any more of his pictures after he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut.
The photograph by Adnan Hajj, which was published on news Web sites on Saturday, showed thick black smoke rising above buildings in the Lebanese capital after an Israeli air raid in the war with the Shi'ite Islamic group Hizbollah, now in its fourth week.
Reuters withdrew the doctored image on Sunday and replaced it with the unaltered photograph after several news blogs said it had been manipulated using Photoshop software to show more smoke.
Reuters has strict standards of accuracy that bar the manipulation of images in ways that mislead the viewer.
"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.
"This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him," Whittle said in a statement issued in London.
Hajj worked for Reuters as a non-staff freelance, or contributing photographer, from 1993 until 2003 and again since April 2005.
He was among several photographers from the main international news agencies whose images of a dead child being held up by a rescuer in the village of Qana, south Lebanon, after an Israeli air strike on July 30 have been challenged by blogs critical of the mainstream media's coverage of the Middle East conflict.
Reuters and other news organisations reviewed those images and have all rejected allegations that the photographs were staged.
"Reuters, the global news and information agency..."
"al Reuters, the global news and information agency of terrorists worldwide, ..."
There; that's more accurate.
"Reuters has strict standards of accuracy that bar the manipulation of images in ways that mislead the viewer."
Uh huh. Now what about text manipulation that misleads the reader, i.e. the restriction against the use of the accurate term "terrorist" when referring to, well, terrorists?
Reuter standards are much like the 11th Commandment : DON'T GET CAUGHT.
In related news, Al-Jazeera announced it's newest staff photographer, Hajj.
They got caught with their fat little jihadi hand in the cookie jar.
Al-Reuters contact information:
Corporate Marketing & Communications Director
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7542 7800
Global Head of Executive Communication
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7542 6005
Public Relations Director
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7542 2615
Head of PR, Research & Asset Management
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7542 0496
Head of PR, Enterprise
Tel: +44 (0) 207 542 6865
Head of PR - Media & Editorial
Tel: +44(0) 207 542 3436
Head of PR, Corporate
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7542 5211
PR & Corporate Events Manager
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7542 7457
Director Media Relations, Reuters America
Tel: +646 223 5223
Media Relations, Reuters America
Tel: +646 223 5596
Liam Hwee Tay
Head of Corporate Communications, Asia
Tel: +65 68 703 028
I believe they have a high standard: you can doctor a picture, as long as nobody can tell it. An amateurish job like this, which make people realized that it was doctored, failed their standard, so they let him go.
Reuters is standing by the Qana photos by using the reaction to this photo as proof that they are honest.
Yep, just add this serious "breach" to the the mountain-high pile of breaches (also known as Mt. Sheet on Reuters PenInsultula).
They manipulate the read enough with their commentary.
A Clintonesque admission that they do doctor images. They just don't want to mislead you, they only do it to reinforce the idea that they are already trying to portray with the image.
Since they were trying to show through the image that the terrorists were victims, this image probably technically didn't violate their standards and it shouldn't have been withdrawn.
OMG, this is so rich - I just don't know where to begin!
Ah, yes, good old "fake but accurate..."
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.