Reuters Purges Photo Database

Buzzle.com ^ | 8/7/2006

[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Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj from its database after establishing that he had altered another image.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 Reuters has withdrawn all photographs taken by Beirut-based freelance Adnan Hajj from its database after establishing that he had altered not one, but two, images since the start of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."

[JennysCool]

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.

[Rembrandt]

"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.

[PistolPaknMama]

Reuters Purges Photo Database

Wow. Who saw that coming? /s

[attackcartoons]

lets see if this works

[upchuck]

This reply is just for the tag line :)

[Husker8877]

I've always enjoyed that picture of Janet Reno strolling through the woods.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

The should purge the entire POS company while they are at it.

[SlowBoat407]

OK, so I need someone to explain this one to me.

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.

[sine_nomine]

Big Foot AND Green Helmet man. Where is Tourist Guy?

Hey all you bloggers and Freepers. Congratulations for making this a national story.

Dan Rather-Biased.

Al-Roto-Reuters.

What next?

[DoughtyOne]

Rooters, where a photo is worth 1,000 turds.

[DoughtyOne]

How about the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, siding with the terrorists to support Syria's agenda, and publish their propaganda.

[GOP Poet]

bump for later

[GOPyouth]

Reuters didn't pull the photos until it got caught. It was fake, but accurate.

[samiam230]

Yes, things fall through the cracks all the time. And yes, those at Reuters, outside of just the photographer, should be punished for shoddy journalism and editing. However, Reuters is a HUGE news agencies. A quick look at their website this morning shows articles from Sri Lanke, Japan, Dafur, the Philippines, Bali, South Korea, and Ethopia, just to name a few. Reuters has editions in the United States, Germany, Japan, Britian, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico, and Russia (again to name just a few). Reuters publishs newstories in English, Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, and many other languages. And Reuters has video and photographs from around the world. Again, today's example is from Cuba, the Middle East, from Europe, from Asia, etc. The simple point is that Reuters reviews thousands upon thousands of photos a day. The photographer in question was not even a Reuters employee, rather a freelance photographer. And Reuters, when someone notice caught the mistake, took appropriate actions. Where some of you see a grand conspiracy, a far more parsimonious explanation is a rogue freelance photographer and poor quality and control at the production editor level. Had Reuters refused to act when these altered images were discovered, had Reuters stood behind the photographer, then you would have case. That simply is not what happened.

By the way, thanks for the snide remarks rather than intelligent discourse. I especially appreciate the immediate assumption that i am a "leftist" because I dare ask a simple question about what I view are very irrational responses to a thread.

[dirtboy]

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.

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.

[dennisw]

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.

Reuters approved doctored photos though laziness and sheer stupidity.
Staged photos? They've been exposed and pointed out many times in the last few years. Reuters has let their Arab photographers run with them. The photographers became too blatant to ignore this month with Green Helmet Guy and other phonies

[dennisw]

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.

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

[sine_nomine]

At least it is getting more obvious and the economic effect is hitting.