Skip to comments.Reuters Purges Photo Database
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Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj from its database after establishing that he had altered another image.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 Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj from its database after establishing that he had altered not one, but two, images since the start of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 ...
The guys at Powerline asked the question---does this mean that access of the photos will be denied and thus, scrutiny will be prevented?
If so, this is a problem.
I have to purge after seeing most Reuters articles, pictures included or not.
First Reuters binges, gets caught, then purges.
I am sure that someone out there has made a collection of
Adnan Hajj' fake photos, they will come back to haunt Reuters, time and time again.
They are running the shredders! Just like Enron. ;-)
Reuters needs to have its feet held firmly to the fire, with or without extra smoke. Who was the photo editor who reviewed the questionable photos and allowed them to be published? He or she is either totally incompetent or a shill for terrorists. In the first case, a firing is in order. In the second, a firing squad might be more appropriate.
Sweeping the evidence under the rug?
Reuters has standards? Wow. Now THAT'S news!
Adnan Hajj will go into the Liars Hall of Fame right next to Baghdad Bob.
Good one! ROFL.
Jason Blair, Adnan Hajj, Dan Rather.
Doctoring photos is "bad" at Reuters, but "staging" them is still OK.
OK, so I need someone to explain this one to me. Reuters admits that these photographs were doctored and then did the right thing by firing the photographer and deleting the photographs from its database. Instead of lauding Reuters for doing the right thing, I see nothing but condescension. I really don't get it.
Tom Szlukovenyi, the Reuters global picture editor said:How about deliberate STAGING a photograph?"There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image.
Is that still O.K.?See also from littlegreenfootballs.com:
sunday, august 28, 2005
How Phony Can They Get?
Heres a touching scene, featuring Cindy Sheehan and the Reverend Al Sharpton, in front of crosses, looking solemn and sad.
Now lets zoom out and see the media swarm around this manufactured event:
(Hat tip: Bill P.)
I googled some of Hajj's photos, and among them are some pretty fine sports pictures. Too bad he didn't stick to sports, instead of going for the propaganda. I feel a bit sorry for him, because I suspect his superiors at Reuters were just as culpable, but let him take the fall.
"Adnan Hajj will go into the Liars Hall of Fame right next to Baghdad Bob."
For all of his ability to ignore the obvious, I hope that Baghdad Bob is at least selling used camels nowadays.
"I really don't get it."
Then you never will.
Wow. Who saw that coming? /s
This reply is just for the tag line :)
I've always enjoyed that picture of Janet Reno strolling through the woods.
The should purge the entire POS company while they are at it.
The short version is: Reuters got caught passing doctored and staged photos as real. At best they did not screen properly, more likely, they knew and published anyway. Either way, it's shoddy journalism, and possibly worse.
It took an outside entity to catch what they were doing---not their own people. How long would it have gone on were the photos not detected by the hated rightwing blogoshpere? In what other ways is the Reuters' bias stil manifesting itself in their news coverage? How long until more of the same is discovered by the hated rightwing blogosphere rather than by Reuters themselves?
Leftists such as the one you were responding to in this thread have no interest in such questions.
Big Foot AND Green Helmet man. Where is Tourist Guy?
Hey all you bloggers and Freepers. Congratulations for making this a national story.
How about the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, siding with the terrorists to support Syria's agenda, and publish their propaganda.
bump for later
Reuters didn't pull the photos until it got caught. It was fake, but accurate.
Reuters also won't call terrorists terrorists. They have the most slanted reporting in the Middle East. And they still have no problem with staged pictures, just doctored ones.
I will give kudos to an organization that willfully corrects a rogue employee. The problem is, Reuters is a rogue organization.
Because Reuters and other agencies have been disseminating the Muslim's staged photos and videos for years. This time they got caught. Reuters functions as a propaganda arm for Jihad.
You think Adnan Hajj's photos are an anomaly. They are not
At least it is getting more obvious and the economic effect is hitting.
If you don't see the pattern that has existed within the news coverage presented by Reuters over the last 6 years than there is no hope for you. These doctored photos are simply one more example.
'Intelligent discourse' is not possible with an apologist such as yourself who is obviously either blind to the ongoing bias of Reuters and would rather try to rationalize and make excuses for the their behavior.
Name one story that Reuters is prioritizing above the war in the Middle East and then try to tell me that some secretary somewhere is the one who let this get by. Laughable. Your excuse-making and defense of one of the propaganda arms of terrorists everywhere is comedic.
Go peddle your BS at Democratic Underground, it will be much more accepted there where logic and sound reasoning are not only not required but discouraged.
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
Glenn Greenwald bump.
(I highly recommend you post Greenwald's column as its own thread to the main board. And, don't forget to defend Reuters in that thread as deftly as you have here.)
Glenn Greenwald. Indeed........
By the way, do you agree with what Greenwald said here:
"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."
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.
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.