The Media - Biased

[Arcadian83]

Biased is biased, but doctoring an image like that is just plain fabrication!

"Isreal invades Lebanon" versus "Isreal defends itself" are both biased, but get said and people interpret them with as much salt as they please.

This is different: lies and propaganda. No self-respecting reporting service should do this. I'll remember this every time I see "Reuters" and the top/bottom of an article again.

Then again I feel similarly about AP, too, so I guess I can't believe anything.

 

[Leatherneck]

What Reuter actually said (as per the article itself) : "One of our employee altered the picture. We have withdrawn it and suspenced the employee."
What the media titled the article : "Reuter admit to altering picture".

Not QUITE the same thing.

Only after LGF cold busted them on it and it made it's way at light speed around the blogospere. Anyone could see that was altered with Photoshop's clone tool as it was a pretty poor effort at that. Do the editors not look at what is being released to the masses? Do you think they'd really self correct if not called on it?

 

[Evie]

Note, again, that as far as we know, this was a single Reuter photograph acting on his own.

Where's the evidence of anything more than that? I certainly see no such thing. Booing down the whole of Reuter over this is overreaction.

And given the number of pictures and reports that Reuters and so forth have to put out daily, I have no trouble believing that one edited picture could slip through.

What'S that saying? "Don't assume evil for what can be as easily explained by stupidity"? It applies here.

 

[Tulkas12]

This is shocking to me. I have always recognized the natural biases we all have and the fact that journalists have these same biases. This is horrific though, its plain out abrication. I will never see a reuters story the same . .. ever again.

 

[Leatherneck]

Note, again, that as far as we know, this was a single Reuter photograph acting on his own.

Where's the evidence of anything more than that? I certainly see no such thing. Booing down the whole of Reuter over this is overreaction.

And given the number of pictures and reports that Reuters and so forth have to put out daily, I have no trouble believing that one edited picture could slip through.

This was long before LGF busted them on the photo ...

here is a death threat sent to LGF back in May from Reuters calling LGF Zionist Pigs and they hoped there thoats were cut ....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20760_A_Death_Threat_from_Reuters_(Bumped)&only

 

[Tulkas12]

Note, again, that as far as we know, this was a single Reuter photograph acting on his own.

Where's the evidence of anything more than that? I certainly see no such thing. Booing down the whole of Reuter over this is overreaction.

And given the number of pictures and reports that Reuters and so forth have to put out daily, I have no trouble believing that one edited picture could slip through.

What'S that saying? "Don't assume evil for what can be as easily explained by stupidity"? It applies here.

One bad journalist can easily erase all the good a company has done. News is that kind of business. Imo you can show biases and be fine, but this kind of manipulation absolutely ruins credibility. It will taint any reuters story I ssee for some time to come.

 

[Evie]

As I said before - a handful of rotten apples at Reuters is obvious from the articles.

But blaming the whole of reuters for these is just moronic.

To the above poster : I can understand having doubts about Reuters news story for a while after this - it's obvious that bad apples can slip through their nets. Then again, I generally already assumed that about pretty much every news network - editors can't possibly verify everything and still get the news out in a timely fashion.

None of this make the outlets themselves biased, though.

 

[Leatherneck]

As I said before - a handful of rotten apples at Reuters is obvious from the articles.

But blaming the whole of reuters for these is just moronic.

(Above poster : I can understand having doubts about Reuters news story for a while after this ; but calling the lot of them biased is another ball game entirely)

Then WHY isn't Reuters running the story? It might give them credibility to report their own screw up. Go to Reuters and find the story, I can't even find it in their tiny little corrections link at the bottom of the page. Makes you go hmmm ...

 

[.Shane.]

Well, if its even possible to cut through the haze, BS, and hyperbole of this thread...

Let's back up. First off, the whole liberal bias thing... AFAIK, in the US, at least, support for Israel is not a partisan issue, so let's just get past that, if some people can stop their knee jerk epileptic seizures.

Secondly, is there anyone here who actually KNOWS, the process by which photos are vetted and published by news agencies?

Lastly, re: the person who posted a rant... SO WHAT, seriously. New agencies have 100s, if not 1000s of employee. If someone can't conceive of them having personal opinions and then also some of them exercising bad judgement then I'd say that person is an idiot. People are not androids, nor do they suddenly have brilliant judgement because they work for a news agency. The guy could be an editor, but, he could also be a mail clerk or the night janitor.

Jeezus wholly freaking over-reaction.

 

[amadeus]

Of course al-Reuters edits the photographs. This isn't really news.

 

[puglover]

Of course theyre all biased. Nothing touched by the hand of Man is free of a bias.

Nicely said. I watch news and make judgments. I try not to worry about bias, I just gather facts.

 

[Tulkas12]

Well, if its even possible to cut through the haze, BS, and hyperbole of this thread...

Let's back up. First off, the whole liberal bias thing... AFAIK, in the US, at least, support for Israel is not a partisan issue, so let's just get past that, if some people can stop their knee jerk epileptic seizures.

Secondly, is there anyone here who actually KNOWS, the process by which photos are vetted and published by news agencies?

Lastly, re: the person who posted a rant... SO WHAT, seriously. New agencies have 100s, if not 1000s of employee. If someone can't conceive of them having personal opinions and then also some of them exercising bad judgement then I'd say that person is an idiot. People are not androids, nor do they suddenly have brilliant judgement because they work for a news agency. The guy could be an editor, but, he could also be a mail clerk or the night janitor.

Jeezus wholly freaking over-reaction.

Well I think the point is that in most feilds of work you're right. The problem is that in this feild one lives and dies by accuracy. Its one thing to be mislead (very forgivable), its another thing altogether to be doing the misleading.

This hurts their credibility. Period.

 

[Mr. Do]

It does hurt the credibility of the organisation, much like when we hear of crimes commited by soldiers in Iraq many peoples' opinions of them drop. Reuters should take pro-active steps to ensure this doesn't happen again if it wants people to have confidence in what it reports.

 

[Follow Gandhi]

It's pretty sad that they have to edit a photo to try to make a point. Please just report the facts. It makes you wonder how much else is going on behind the scenes.

 

[Leatherneck]

It does hurt the credibility of the organisation, much like when we hear of crimes commited by soldiers in Iraq many peoples' opinions of them drop. Reuters should take pro-active steps to ensure this doesn't happen again if it wants people to have confidence in what it reports.

Like I said earlier Reuters isn't ... nothing on there website, no oops, no we screwed up, no retraction, and no photo. They are sweeping it under the carpet and the big issue is credibility. They are a news agency and you live and die by your credibility. Look at the NYTimes .. use to be trustworth now they are cutting job right and left do to such heavy drops in readership, more than the national average of papers as more and more people get there news online. People don't buy their paper because people do not trust them anymore.

 

[Arcadian83]

To further kick the deceased horse:

A reporter making fabrications is like a cook intentionally poisoning in the food they make, and getting caught.
They'll never work in food again.
They're employer should be ashamed for employing them.
Many customers will go somewhere else, for good reason.

It is not a small matter, because we trusted the cook, and the restaurant's judgement in hiring them. We cannot tell if we are getting poisoned easily. One wonders about when they were feeling ill in the past....

Reuters not acknowledging or apologizing for this is... well that could take another rant.

 

[luiz]

What is worrying is that they only changed it after bloggers pointed out the doctoring, what makes me think that Reuters either doesn't check the photos it publish (extreme incompetence and irresponsability) or knew about the doctoring and published it anyway.

Note that even if they knew about the doctoring, that doesn't necessarily mean they have an anti-israeli bias. Media outlets like sensationalism. Nevertheless, this certainly hurts their credibility.

PS: It is a known fact that many major media outlets exaggerate and sometimes even publish entirely fabricated accounts of palestinian deads and woundeds. Everyone should watch the documentary "Pallywood", it can be found on YouTube.

 

[Tulkas12]

What is worrying is that they only changed it after bloggers pointed out the doctoring, what makes me think that Reuters either doesn't check the photos it publish (extreme incompetence and irresponsability) or knew about the doctoring and published it anyway.

Note that even if they knew about the doctoring, that doesn't necessarily mean they have an anti-israeli bias. Media outlets like sensationalism. Nevertheless, this certainly hurts their credibility.

PS: It is a known fact that many major media outlets exaggerate and sometimes even publish entirely fabricated accounts of palestinian deads and woundeds. Everyone should watch the documentary "Pallywood", it can be found on YouTube.

The pallywood video was very well done. It clearly illustrates what some of us have been saying for some time.

 

[nivi]

Surprise surprise....

More reuters screw-ups:




Described as 3 missiles....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Oh wait...its not missiles, its flares...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Oh wait...it is actualy 1 flare photshopped...






I can't find an english source for this, but I will look more.

 

[nivi]

.........

The photgrapher, same guy, now reuters suspended him.


Whadd'ya know, he took most of the pictures from qana.


One more case of his manipulations:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014919.php



Edit: Heres another one: EDIT2: Diffrent phtographers, same reuters. And AP


http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/extreme-makeover-beirut-edition.html


Unbelievble...