Reuters' Journalistic "Objectivity"
As this piece points out, a Reuters photographer has been suspended for manipulating his photographs to make the damage on Beirut inflicted by Israeli airstrikes look more severe.
What's almost as remarkable as the fact that one of its photographers was, in essence, engaging in anti-Israel propaganda is the fact that Reuters admitted it and suspended him. After all, Reuters is the organization that refused to use the word "terrorist" to describe the perpetrators of 9/11.
It's disappointing to realize that a photographer was distorting images, effectively resulting in the making of a political point. But it's even sadder that it's not surprising to learn that he works for Reuters.
Thomas Lifson has more at The American Thinker.
What's almost as remarkable as the fact that one of its photographers was, in essence, engaging in anti-Israel propaganda is the fact that Reuters admitted it and suspended him. After all, Reuters is the organization that refused to use the word "terrorist" to describe the perpetrators of 9/11.
It's disappointing to realize that a photographer was distorting images, effectively resulting in the making of a political point. But it's even sadder that it's not surprising to learn that he works for Reuters.
Thomas Lifson has more at The American Thinker.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:14 AM
2 Comments:
Now all 920 photos by Hajj have been pulled by Reuters. (source)
Was Reuters "used" to disseminate Hezballah propaganda? Or did they do it willingly?
Carol - some perspective on how truly awful and disgusting this picture falsification is.
I personally know an executive for a major area building contractor. Once, he and I discussed the subject of digital photography. (This was many years ago, when it was a novelty.)
He stated that at every stage of completion of a building, pictures are taken. FILM ONLY cameras are used. They will never go to digital unless they have no choice.
Why? I asked. Surely digital is cheaper and more convenient. Because, he explained, if anything goes wrong and we are taken to court, we need to demonstrate how the building was built and what it looked like at what stage and when. We need unimpeachable evidence, which usually means negatives. Digital photography would destroy our ability to cover our [selves] with that kind of certainty.
How nice it would be if Reuters adhered to the standards of this firm. But then, the firm is a big construction firm for a major metro area. Not some little outfit that, you know, disseminates information about the fate of a nation out to the free world.
Post a Comment
<< Home