REUTERS' Altered Images

Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)




Oops!


Let's talk about credibility, integrity, and Reuters.

"Key Facts" from the Reuters website:

--Founded in London in 1851

--Around 330,000 professional users

--Approximately 15,300 staff in 89 countries

--World's largest international multimedia news agency - 2,300 editorial staff, journalists, photographers and camera operators in 196 bureaux serving approximately 130 countries

There are some "key facts" missing on the list.

For example, it doesn't include:

--Follows a strict anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-Cheney, anti-American, pro-terrorist agenda

--Provides doctored photos to aid and abet terrorists

--World's largest Leftist propaganda tool

Reuters, the news outlet that refuses to call a terrorist a terrorist, is going about its usual business today -- spinning, distorting, and misleading.

But today is a little bit different at Reuters. Rather than making up the news, it IS the news today.

This information service/ propaganda machine has been exposed, AGAIN, as an agenda-driven, terrorist-appeasing pack of crackpots.

From YnetNews:

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs.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 Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.

In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

"Inconvenience"?

Reuters' betrayed the trust of every outlet that relies on the service to provide accurate information and photos.

That's more than an "inconvenience."

The deception is inexcusable.

Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

What a load!

If Reuters takes these matters so seriously, why does the organization keep allowing them to happen?

Why does Reuters consistently slap "editorialized" pictures on the photo wire?

This is a pattern with Reuters. It's far from one employee run amok.

Read about the manipulated "Bush bathroom break" photo here.

Read about another Reuters cheap shot here.

Read about the anti-Bush Reuters lens here.

"As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software," she added.

Blah, blah, blah.

Why did it take bloggers to reveal the photo's obvious deception?

Doesn't Reuters have some internal checks on the product it puts out?

More importantly, why did it happen at all?

At this point, Reuters has the credibility of The New York Times.

Bias? What bias?

YnetNews provides links to a number of blogs that have debunked the photo and sent the powerful Reuters into retreat.

Ynet also has the story of the suspension of a Reuters employee after he sent a death threat to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut."

Isn't that nice?

I didn't realize that sort of hate mail would come from Reuters.

I expect that sort of thing to come from liberal participants on discussion boards, hiding under the supposed veil of anonymity, as well as the boards' employees being complicit in their harassment.

Unfortunately, the Reuters employees behaved no better than the participants of a poorly moderated forum on a lib's website.

The lack of professionalism by Reuters really is stunning.

It's no suprise, but it's stunning nonetheless.