reutergate
 

You probably have heard this.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...286966,00.html

"A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.



The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors."

Seems like...

someone was a moron.

What is your take on this?

Liberal media?
isolated incident?
overzealous yellow journalism?

liberal media. Deffinitely. Thank God you had the balls to call this a 'gate'. Only the reign of liberal terror and power have prevented the application of the 'gate' suffix to this scandal under a man of your personal strength and courage came forward.

sensational, not liberal, media.

it's about getting viewers, period. viewers = advertizing dollars. sensation sells.

it's like you fuckers don't understand the most basic concepts of capitalism.

Sensationalgate!

Is it that sensational? ... a photo was faked to pull at more heartstrings.

I seem to remember one of my openning posts here was about something very similar.

Yes, it's sensationalist. They edited the photo in order to make it look like there was more damage done. This was to attract more attention and readers. Same idea as with the media pictures of people "looting" grocery stores during Hurricane Katrina.

sen·sa·tion·al (sĕn-sā'shə-nəl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to sensation.
2. Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.


Put yourself in an editor's shoes for a second. You get two pictures to choose for your cover story on an earthquake. One shows lots of smoke and rubble, and the other shows what appears to be a relatively undamaged building.

Assuming both pictures are authentic, which do you take to press?

It's not a trick question.

sensationalism is a given for all media outlets. this is more then just sensationalistic.

it's deliberate propaganda + an incompetant news room working with a bias while accomodating steep deadlines.

reuters relies on cheap stringers in third world countries without much concern for what journalistic ethics they have or their affiliations. the stuff only passes the editorial process because it fits the story they want to see. You are being lied to on purpose. Public opinion is being manipulated - on purpose. Now if that's happening with photos, think about the articles themselves.

now that every photo coming out of lebanon is being scrutinized, people are finding an enormous amount of dubious journalism.

here's one:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...hezbollah.html

oops double post.

i forgot to add that hezbollah has copies of every journalists passport and many of them have come clean about filing false reports because they were threatened.

How do you know it wasn't the works of the Israelis in attempt to cover up their war crimes?

Exactly Geggy. How do we know Nasrallah, and the 1000 Lebanese casualties aren't really just Mossad agents put on this earth to make you crazy with distrust for Jews?

n/m

abcd, what is ur source on these people being threatened and later filing false reports?

TIME magazine reporter Christopher Allbritton
Howard Kurtz on CNN's Reliable Sources
Richard Engle on either NBC or CNN's Reliable Sources
Nic Robertson in his blog, and on Anderson Cooper
Cooper has hinted to it a few times....

QFT, this is why i hate so many news programs. It's all about telling half the story for maximum impact.