Israel vs Hezbollah Thread #3

[rainstorm]

I don't disagree with what you suggest in the opening of your comment, Jan; but bear in mind that Reuters has now an established history of being less than candid in calling a spade a spade. Unless they've backtracked, they refuse to even use the word "terrorist" in referring to--well terrorists! This is hardly what I'd call a good news source as they can't recognize terror for what it is. It is also not just an isolated case--this is the second time in as many weeks that Reuter's has rushed to press with phony pictures. They were also very quick to jump the gun on the death reports at Qana, (granted everyone else that I know of did as wel). On the whole, I've quite frequently read articles by Reuters--actually I still do if it's on a topic of interest--but I read it now with a very "gleaning" eye, as they've lost a lot of credibility with me.

A2K

a pattern has developed here. reuters never seems to publish lie stories about terrorists, only israel. why is that?

[x-y-no]

again, why is it al reuters never seems to fake photo's to make terror look bad.

Well, apparently they haven't had the bad luck to have hired a freelance reporter who was inclined to do that.

Of course, I'm not sure why anyone would think it neccesary to fake anything to make terrorists look bad. Just reporting the facts about what they do seems pretty effective at doing that to me.

also, if our govt faked photos to hurt terror , the media would demand investigations. al reuters should be investigated. where is the media on these despicable actions?

Odd, but I would have sworn that you yourself linked us to an article in the media about this episode.

[rainstorm]

is reuters pure slime? they now admit faking more anti-israeli propaganda:



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 74,00.html

why is it that all the stories and photos they fake are done to rip israel? reuters should be shut down

So according to this story, a freelance photographer based in Beirut used photoshop to alter some of his photos, and when this was discoverd by others and pointed out to Reuters, they fired the photographer, withdrew all his work and launched an investigation, and released an announcement of what had happened.

And this makes them "pure slime"?

Have you never in your life encountered a situation where an employee turned out to be dishonest? Did that automatically make his employer "pure slime"?

a pattern seems to be emerging here. does reuters only hire pro-terror reporters? i ask that because it appears they never fake stories or pictures that rip terrorists. also, it seems reuters editors must be either total ignoramuses, or pro terror as well, they are supposedly veteran news people that you would think could spot a phony picture or story, yet it takes bloggers sitting in front of a computer at home to uncover the false images

[x-y-no]

On the whole, I've quite frequently read articles by Reuters--actually I still do if it's on a topic of interest--but I read it now with a very "gleaning" eye, as they've lost a lot of credibility with me.

A2K

That's the way I read every source.

I don't doubt that there's an editorial bias at Reuters, it's hard to entirely escape one's acculturation. But I also seriously doubt that Reuters as an organzation deliberately engages in falsification, as is being alleged in this thread. And I would say exactly the same about, say, Fox News. Clearly they have a strong editorial bias, but I believe they take the factual presentation of the news very seriously. (Their opinion shows OTOH ... )

[Regit]

On the whole, I've quite frequently read articles by Reuters--actually I still do if it's on a topic of interest--but I read it now with a very "gleaning" eye, as they've lost a lot of credibility with me.

A2K

That's the way I read every source.

I don't doubt that there's an editorial bias at Reuters, it's hard to entirely escape one's acculturation. But I also seriously doubt that Reuters as an organzation deliberately engages in falsification, as is being alleged in this thread. And I would say exactly the same about, say, Fox News. Clearly they have a strong editorial bias, but I believe they take the factual presentation of the news very seriously. (Their opinion shows OTOH ... )

I agree with you that any bias is unintentional and certainly not widespread. For any major news organization to be intentionally biased would take work and would require a LOT of people to keep quiet.

If you believe that a major news organization has an intentional, calculated bias, then any conspiracy theory must be equally logical.

[rainstorm]

On the whole, I've quite frequently read articles by Reuters--actually I still do if it's on a topic of interest--but I read it now with a very "gleaning" eye, as they've lost a lot of credibility with me.

A2K

That's the way I read every source.

I don't doubt that there's an editorial bias at Reuters, it's hard to entirely escape one's acculturation. But I also seriously doubt that Reuters as an organzation deliberately engages in falsification, as is being alleged in this thread. And I would say exactly the same about, say, Fox News. Clearly they have a strong editorial bias, but I believe they take the factual presentation of the news very seriously. (Their opinion shows OTOH ... )

I agree with you that any bias is unintentional and certainly not widespread. For any major news organization to be intentionally biased would take work and would require a LOT of people to keep quiet.

If you believe that a major news organization has an intentional, calculated bias, then any conspiracy theory must be equally logical.

but we have at least 2 faked pictures, and a reuters employee calling people zionist pigs. if these are all honest errors, why is it that they never make errors that make terror look bad? why is that?

[x-y-no]

Reuters is a big company. Two bad employees are supposed to be representative of the whole organization?


And I really don't understand the repeated demands for errors making terorists look bad. Are you saying you would have more respect for a news organzation that made more errors?

Reuters has reported on lots of terrorist attacks, and in my opinion every one of those reports I've read made the terrorists look bad. It didn't take any error to do that - just good reporting.

[darkclouds]

A2K, you seem to mae every situation black and white. Reuters made a mistake, it doesn't mean that they are not reputable news source.

[Derek Ortt]

seems like Lebanon is slowly coming around now that Israel is starting to pound the civilian population. They are offering to send 15K troops to the border if Israel withdraws.

They are coming around, but are not there yet and Israel has said they will escalate further later this week

[Stephanie]

seems like Lebanon is slowly coming around now that Israel is starting to pound the civilian population. They are offering to send 15K troops to the border if Israel withdraws.

They are coming around, but are not there yet and Israel has said they will escalate further later this week

Lebanon needs to take care of what is happening within their own country. They just can't keep saying "oh, it's Hezzbolah" - they are in their country. I hope this is the beginning of a cease fire!

[Audrey2Katrina]

A2K, you seem to mae every situation black and white. Reuters made a mistake, it doesn't mean that they are not reputable news source.

Hey, Darkclouds--you got some ax to grind with me? I've been actually fairly objective on this topic--I suggest you ponder a little more around those clouds and find the silver lining!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

They are offering to send 15K troops to the border if Israel withdraws.

One can't help but wonder where were all these 15K troops when it was time to enforce UN, let's see... what was it 1559 or something? Bottom line, they were impotent against Hezbollah, and unless something has drastically changed; I don't see where they'll be any more effective than before--that is unless they grow up and actually side with the anti-terrorist side in all this.

A2K

[darkclouds]

A2K, you seem to mae every situation black and white. Reuters made a mistake, it doesn't mean that they are not reputable news source.

Hey, Darkclouds--you got some ax to grind with me? I've been actually fairly objective on this topic--I suggest you ponder a little more around those clouds and find the silver lining!

A2K

No, but I disagree with the rest of your statement. Very biased. Anyways, before I go to bed Reuters is still a very trustworthy news source regardless of what you think.

[stormtruth]

again, why is it al reuters never seems to fake photo's to make terror look bad.

also, if our govt faked photos to hurt terror , the media would demand investigations. al reuters should be investigated. where is the media on these despicable actions?

Don't you remember the faked photo from the last election to show more soldiers at a presedential speech?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library ... clones.htm

Or the yummy Iraq turkey was that was just for show and not for the troops to eat?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

Or when a leading conservative California congressional candidate showed a photo of Turkey and told everyone it was Iraq?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... I0HQP1.DTL

More things are staged and/or faked more often than we would like to believe unfortunately. Reuters did the right thing and fired the photojournalist for doctoring these photographs. And you can be sure many bloggers are out there right now trying to find other phony Reuters photos. Bloggers are good at that as you can see by the Reuters photo they found and the above examples

[Audrey2Katrina]

No, but I disagree with the rest of your statement.

If you disagree with my statement, then cite exactly what it is you have an issue with, and try to present a cogent reason why; or simply leave it as an "I disagree". Either is fine by me; but I don't take kindly to folks putting words in my mouth, and claiming I've said something I didn't say.

Very biased

Why? Because I said something you don't like or agree with? Oh, well, how can anyone debate against impeccable logic like that?

Reuters is still a very trustworthy news source regardless of what you think.

What I think has nothing to do with it. What they DO is what it's all about. In the first place, I've stated that I will still use Reuter's myself when necessary--but that I would do so with a gleaning eye. Quite simply, I don't put much "trust" in an organization that cannot bring itself to use the word "terrorist" in describing Al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or any other butchering savages of our day. Perhaps our views on what constitutes "trustworthy" are at odds here; but that said, they still have some readworthy articles--but with a "gleaning" eye.

A2K

[x-y-no]

Quite simply, I don't put much "trust" in an organization that cannot bring itself to use the word "terrorist" in describing Al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or any other butchering savages of our day. Perhaps our views on what constitutes "trustworthy" are at odds here; but that said, they still have some readworthy articles--but with a "gleaning" eye.

A2K

I've been wondering what the evidence for this claim is. Do you have evidence that there's a policy at Reuters not to call al Qaeda a terrorist organization?

Searching today's stories for the term "terrorist" returns four stories. Two of those refer to the same organization ( a group in Morocco) but nonetheless that's three examples, just today, of Reuters bringing themselves to use the word "terrorist" to describe some of the "other butchering savages of our day." Are you really so sure they haven't done so in the case of al Qaeda?

[stormtruth]

What I think has nothing to do with it. What they DO is what it's all about. In the first place, I've stated that I will still use Reuter's myself when necessary--but that I would do so with a gleaning eye. Quite simply, I don't put much "trust" in an organization that cannot bring itself to use the word "terrorist" in describing Al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or any other butchering savages of our day. Perhaps our views on what constitutes "trustworthy" are at odds here; but that said, they still have some readworthy articles--but with a "gleaning" eye.

A2K

Reuters has referred often to al qaeda as a terrorist network. Here's
one pretty clear example in an article that faults Bush for having still not captured Bin Laden.

Bin Laden, in an audiotape that aired last week, warned that Al-Qaeda is preparing attacks in the United States but is open to a conditional truce with Washington. The United States immediately rejected the offer.

Bush has been criticized by some for focusing U.S. efforts on the war in Iraq at the expense of aggressively pursuing Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Reuters definitely calls Al Qaeda a terrorist network there.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Do you have evidence that there's a policy at Reuters not to call al Qaeda a terrorist organization?

Actually, this made news quite some time ago, Reuters' "official" policy includes NOT using the dreaded "T" word for any specific person or organization... I note that Stomtruth has cited an article hither and/or yon which might belie the claim; however this proves nothing as by their own admission, papers can change and copy certain words within the article--but they do NOT approve such changes; a cursory review of Reuters own admissions will show that their policy is adamantly that of NOT calling terrorists..."terrorists"...

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Reuters_Admits_Appeasing_Terrorists.asp

The website is Honest Reporting, and has several links for further investigation. Again, IN the article you will see how individual agencies like CanWest took a Reuters report and USED the word "Terrorist" (sort of like the isolated story Stormtruth provided)... and they got the following response from Reuters, as per the article:

Reuters didn't like the adjustment, and took the unusual step of officially informing CanWest that if it intended to continue this practice, CanWest should remove Reuters' name from the byline. Why? The New York Times reported:

"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."

Bottom line: Isolated examples aside--it has been widely reported and acknowledged by Reuters' itself, through anything but "extremist" agencies.. such as the NYT, that they do NOT us the word "terrorists" in describing "terrorist"-- as POLICY... this does not preclude editing further down the pike--albeit when caught, as CanWest was--Reuters does let them know. They consider calling a terrorist what they are, employing "emotive" words---??? Excuse me, but that is subject to very vague, subjective, and arbitrary interpretation in the extreme. Again.. permitting potential "bias" in and of itself to enter the article. I'm sorry, but when you can't call a terrorist a terrorist because you're so PC braindead that you wring your hands over the use of "emotive" words-- well I stand by my statement--trust suffers. All that said, I reiterate that I do read Reuters' articles, and unless/until I can see clear and extreme bias, will continue to--it's just that their own stated policy about using this one word, makes me very hesitant to trust stories that might well contain a strong bias--like I said, a gleaning eye is required--but your point is well taken also--in today's media that gleaning eye is required with virtually anything and everything you see/read.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Reuters has referred often to al qaeda as a terrorist network.

Actually--no it hasn't. That is from "Radio Free Europe" (check the web page) and it "cites" a Reuters report... see what IS Reuters' admitted policy (and has been for years) in the article with links to the NYT quote above The New York Times has even referred to this policy of NOT using this term which is NOT new--it began as far back as post 9/11 when the terrorists who perpetrated that attrocity were referred to as "attackers"... as if that is any less "emotive" than terrorist--it's simply taking "objectivity" to a ridiculous extreme--terror is terror and the inability to call it that displays a lack of intestinal fortitude more than anything else. A Reuters' memo actually stated "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"... ummm while one might make a valid contention that semantically this is true, it does NOT detract from what is civilized behavior from that which is positively unacceptable. Would Reuters' today have made the same claim for Adolph Hitler, and all his minions? I mean the same argument about one man's this is another man's that applies... in other words, while sounding profound, it is grossly oversimplistic.

Reuters definitely calls Al Qaeda a terrorist network there.

No Reuters doesn't... Radio Free Europe does... using their report. Again... please refer to the openly acknowledged policy of Reuters cited above. The CBC is anything but "conservative" and even their own agencies refer to the issues Reuters has over the use of this word:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/17/canwesterrorist040917.html


A2K

[vbhoutex]

Please tell me what any of the last several posts has to do with the conflict in the Middle East? Please let's get back on the subject.