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.
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 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
What's the old saying- "it's not the crime that gets you, it's the coverup?"
If Reuters is willing to admit only that two were faked, why purge all of them?
Why not leave them all in place and simply put a disclaimer on them, indeed, why not write a story on how a photographer tried to use your organization for his own purposes? Surely it's newsworthy even if huniliating for Reuters. Why cover it up?
Why not? A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on- so there is utility in being able to print propaganda freely and then retract it later in that you can stll claim to have "unbiased credibility" when you should be considered subversive. You are still able to run an effective propaganda machine since few people will ever see unillustrated retractions in some backwater part of your publication.
Even if someone does catch the retraction, they cannot determine the extent to which they were manipulated by a propagandist if they can't be certain which article or which photo of thousands they saw was the propaganda.