View Full Version : Reuters Phot scandal....

04-30-2010, 04:14 PM

Keith Wilson
04-30-2010, 04:29 PM
Old news, I think. I heard about this in '06 when it was new IIRC. "Milking it for dramatic effect" might be closer to the truth then "fraud", but maybe not.

Flying Orca
04-30-2010, 04:30 PM
Interesting. I don't tend to do a lot of graphic media, so a lot this sort of thing tends to pass me by unless it inflames the blogosphere.

Ian McColgin
04-30-2010, 04:50 PM
Yep. QUite a deal when it broke five years ago. In the end Reuters took all pics by that photographer off, fired him, and fired the editor who did not notice the alterations. At about the same time, an AP photographer had a similar problem.

The deal was first unconvered by bloggers and it's not at all clear whether Reuters would have realized the fraud without them. Reuters took a few months of silence before their inside investigation was completed, reaching further (the photo editor) than the outside bloggers could.

Israel viewed the Reuters and AP photographers as part of an Arab plot to further manipulate media sourses critical of the Israeli attacks.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2010, 06:26 PM
I suspect it is just business as usual

Ian McColgin
04-30-2010, 07:49 PM
Suspect away. Evidence helps. Some news outfits when they catch reporters or photographers cheating own up and correct the record. Some don't.

And some, not bothering with checking facts, just suspect or think or otherwise make it up.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2010, 07:54 PM
what are YOU defending? (possibly...the source of some of your "justifyed" ire)

Ian McColgin
04-30-2010, 08:06 PM
I'm pointing out that Reuters managed to do the right thing. As, in a less publicized way, did AP. Both institutions might have been a bit faster at figuring out that they were being used for propaganda, used needlessly as it happened, but they got the point eventually.

Even in the states where the stakes might be less and where the political pressures are not quite so life or death we see instances of stories falsified or at least juiced, photos improved or faked wholesale. We see it endemicly on some things, the electronic politicized version of the old tabloids with their space invaders making suburban moms pregnant. So, the only surprise in a story like this is that there are not more instances exposed.

The important thing is that falsifications get exposed. Legitimate news outfits deal with it, acknowledge the problems and publish corrections, and carry on. Phonies if they can't keep chanting the falsehood then simply change the topic.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2010, 08:12 PM
well, I wish us all the right kind of luck with it

04-30-2010, 08:14 PM
No need to suspect, the link shows it to be fact.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2010, 08:15 PM
okay...a little reality...


Ian McColgin
04-30-2010, 08:19 PM
BrianW is right in that the zombie link was in this case factual, if a bit self-serving and shrill. That happens a lot as well. Just because a source has been wrong at times - al Jazera for example - does not make them wrong in everything.

Part of the trick is to find information from as close to the action as possible and see if it has corroboration. Not always possible, at least not at first. For example, at the start of Watergate is was just two guys and a paper for what - some weeks anyway - before other papers were even on the scent.

As in science, criticism and an open mind . . .