fontman
08-08-06, 07:02 AM
Jihad Journalism?
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 8/7/2006
Media Bias: Need a little anti-war, anti-Semitic buck-up? Try some Reuters coverage. The British news outlet will be only too happy to oblige.
Over the weekend, a Reuters photographer was caught trying to make one of Israel's defensive attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon look much more devastating than it was. The photo was eventually withdrawn and the photographer ostensibly fired.
The photo, an image of the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, had apparently been altered to give the effect that the smoke was thicker and the damage worse than it was. The doctored version, credited to Adnan Hajj, a freelance Lebanese photographer, shows two heavy plumes of smoke where there was in fact but one.
Charles Johnson, whom we will return to later, is one of several bloggers who noted that some buildings were repeated in the altered photo as well.
Reuters' explanation? "Photo editing software was improperly used on this image. . . . We are sorry for any inconvenience."
An apology to clients is nice. But what about an apology to Israel for employing staff members who are trying to inflame world opinion against a nation that is already globally hated?
Here we return to Johnson of the Little Green Footballs blog. For his effort in pointing out the phoniness of the photograph, he got a warm message from a Reuters account that said: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut." The so-far-unidentified person used "zionistpig" as his or her e-mail address.
Another anti-Semitic misstep and another Reuters statement. This time the news service confirmed that, yes, "an employee has been suspended pending further investigation." The person "was not an employee of Reuters' news division," for whatever that's worth.
Johnson believes the threat might have come from Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary for the Muslim Council of Britain. He has declared that the British media are "Zionist controlled" and has written for the British Guardian Web site. If so, someone within Reuters conspired with Bunglawala to get the message to Johnson.
Just one episode, some might say. Means nothing. But there's a pattern:
• Thanks to the Powerline blog, we know that Reuters is either sloppy or has purposely used unaltered (we presume) photos to try, yet again, to cripple Israel's self-defense initiative by exaggerating the damage.
On July 24 Reuters issued a photo of a damaged area in Beirut with the explanation that it was the result of "Israeli attacks on a Hezbollah stronghold." Less than two weeks later, a photo dated Aug. 5 from the same damaged area but from a different angle shows a woman walking "past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006."
The photographer? Adnan Hajj, whose entire catalog of Reuters photos has been pulled by the news outlet. The agency also said it has "ended its relationship with Hajj."
• Reuters has not admitted to any doctoring of photos regarding the site of Israel's late July attack on Hezbollah in the Lebanese village of Qana. But the blogosphere is hot with charges that Reuters and others were duped by - or cooperated with - Hezbollah to stage the rescue and recovery of the Qana victims to stir up scorn for Israel.
The Reuters photographer this time? Hajj.
• Reuters has admitted that Hajj changed an image of an Israeli F-16 flying over Lebanon to make it appear the jet fighter dropped three flares rather than one.
• Fearing it will violate its commitment to accuracy and impartiality - which clearly are in question - Reuters refuses, as company policy, to use the word "terrorist" in news reports. Executives prefer that "individuals, organizations and governments . . . make their own decisions based on the facts." But when Reuters provides the facts, reaching a reasoned conclusion becomes a difficult task.
It's neither anti-war nor anti-Semitic, but don't forget it was Reuters that issued the photograph of White House adviser Karl Rove with a clear red-lettered "EXIT" sign next to his head on the June day it was reported he would not be charged in the Valerie Plame dust-up.
Sounds much like the subliminal image Reuters issued a few months earlier of Vice President Dick Cheney with the word "Retire," part of a "Retirement Savings" sign, looming ominously above his head.
Is Reuters a patsy or collaborator? Either way, it is helping the cause of terrorism and undermining civilization.
Unless it wants to become just another branch of Al-Jazeera, it had better make meaningful institutional changes soon.
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 8/7/2006
Media Bias: Need a little anti-war, anti-Semitic buck-up? Try some Reuters coverage. The British news outlet will be only too happy to oblige.
Over the weekend, a Reuters photographer was caught trying to make one of Israel's defensive attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon look much more devastating than it was. The photo was eventually withdrawn and the photographer ostensibly fired.
The photo, an image of the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, had apparently been altered to give the effect that the smoke was thicker and the damage worse than it was. The doctored version, credited to Adnan Hajj, a freelance Lebanese photographer, shows two heavy plumes of smoke where there was in fact but one.
Charles Johnson, whom we will return to later, is one of several bloggers who noted that some buildings were repeated in the altered photo as well.
Reuters' explanation? "Photo editing software was improperly used on this image. . . . We are sorry for any inconvenience."
An apology to clients is nice. But what about an apology to Israel for employing staff members who are trying to inflame world opinion against a nation that is already globally hated?
Here we return to Johnson of the Little Green Footballs blog. For his effort in pointing out the phoniness of the photograph, he got a warm message from a Reuters account that said: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut." The so-far-unidentified person used "zionistpig" as his or her e-mail address.
Another anti-Semitic misstep and another Reuters statement. This time the news service confirmed that, yes, "an employee has been suspended pending further investigation." The person "was not an employee of Reuters' news division," for whatever that's worth.
Johnson believes the threat might have come from Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary for the Muslim Council of Britain. He has declared that the British media are "Zionist controlled" and has written for the British Guardian Web site. If so, someone within Reuters conspired with Bunglawala to get the message to Johnson.
Just one episode, some might say. Means nothing. But there's a pattern:
• Thanks to the Powerline blog, we know that Reuters is either sloppy or has purposely used unaltered (we presume) photos to try, yet again, to cripple Israel's self-defense initiative by exaggerating the damage.
On July 24 Reuters issued a photo of a damaged area in Beirut with the explanation that it was the result of "Israeli attacks on a Hezbollah stronghold." Less than two weeks later, a photo dated Aug. 5 from the same damaged area but from a different angle shows a woman walking "past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006."
The photographer? Adnan Hajj, whose entire catalog of Reuters photos has been pulled by the news outlet. The agency also said it has "ended its relationship with Hajj."
• Reuters has not admitted to any doctoring of photos regarding the site of Israel's late July attack on Hezbollah in the Lebanese village of Qana. But the blogosphere is hot with charges that Reuters and others were duped by - or cooperated with - Hezbollah to stage the rescue and recovery of the Qana victims to stir up scorn for Israel.
The Reuters photographer this time? Hajj.
• Reuters has admitted that Hajj changed an image of an Israeli F-16 flying over Lebanon to make it appear the jet fighter dropped three flares rather than one.
• Fearing it will violate its commitment to accuracy and impartiality - which clearly are in question - Reuters refuses, as company policy, to use the word "terrorist" in news reports. Executives prefer that "individuals, organizations and governments . . . make their own decisions based on the facts." But when Reuters provides the facts, reaching a reasoned conclusion becomes a difficult task.
It's neither anti-war nor anti-Semitic, but don't forget it was Reuters that issued the photograph of White House adviser Karl Rove with a clear red-lettered "EXIT" sign next to his head on the June day it was reported he would not be charged in the Valerie Plame dust-up.
Sounds much like the subliminal image Reuters issued a few months earlier of Vice President Dick Cheney with the word "Retire," part of a "Retirement Savings" sign, looming ominously above his head.
Is Reuters a patsy or collaborator? Either way, it is helping the cause of terrorism and undermining civilization.
Unless it wants to become just another branch of Al-Jazeera, it had better make meaningful institutional changes soon.