• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

It's not a conspiracy theory- it's media bias at its best.
Except no one has yet proven it to be anything beyond an honest mistake, except by claiming a conspiracy for one reason or another.
 
because the video is smack dab right on the website. but if you'd like to see it on youtube: YouTube - Rat Report - Newspaper Guild of NY 'real' real eastate summit Video.mp4

I gave it a 'like' because it's kind of funny, and I feel like Thomson Reuters has been messing up a bit lately.
How is one supposed to take a video seriously when the 2 people doing their 'investigative reporting' are wearing rat costumes? Your posts belong in the conspiracy theory forum.
 
How is one supposed to take a video seriously when the 2 people doing their 'investigative reporting' are wearing rat costumes?
Now I know what Snapple feels like when sprayed out the nose.
 
So what does this have to do with the issue of cropping photographs?
It's to support his contention that Reuters did it intentionally. He's trying to give evidence to support the conspiracy theory angle.
 
Where was blood edited out?

Of the photo. Seriously, dude.

BTW, if you make a claim, that they did this due to bias, you do have to support that claim. YOu can say the cropped the edges. You would be factually correct. But if you say why, you have to offer support. So, when asked where is the support, you either have to provide some, or admit you have none.

You don't know much about journalism I guess. A journalist who lacks impartiality isn't a journalist, he's a clown or politico like Rush Limbaugh. For Reuters to repeatedly edit damning evidence out of the photos creates the appearance of bias. I don't have to PROVE Reuters' intent. It was Reuters' error, Reuters crapped on the carpet, and now it's up to them to prove it was an accident and not intentional.
 
I don't have to PROVE Reuters' intent.
Yes, yes you do.

It was Reuters' error
To which they admitted and fixed.

Reuters crapped on the carpet, and now it's up to them to prove it was an accident and not intentional.
No, it isnt. Aside from the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is no proof to suggest this was intentional.
 
Re: Omfg!

Cut the crap. Photography 101; make sure your subject is centered in your shot.

It seems to me it would have been MORE political to leave the picture un-cropped because you are then suggesting via the photo that the man with the knife in the picture stabbed the soldier, of which there is no proof that isnt circumstantial.

Again, did anyone look at the picture and think the soldier just fell down?

So which is it, guys? Get your stories straight.

Exactly. No one thinks he fell down. Everyone who saw the picture from the beginning thought he was knocked down. Thanks for supporting me. ;)

Maybe we don't need any photos at all. Maybe everybody knows everything and we don't need facts or evidence. Maybe, maybe not.

At a murder trial, the murder weapon is key evidence. No prosecutor is dumb enough to say, "We know he was shot, we don't need to see a gun." Your argument is so weak I can't believe you keep repeating it.

Anybody remember this series of faked Reuters photos from a couple of years ago?

Little Green Footballs - Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?
 
Yes, yes you do.

No, no I don't.

To which they admitted and fixed.

After they got caught.

No, it isnt. Aside from the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is no proof to suggest this was intentional.

And nothing to suggest it wasn't. See my earlier comments about journalistic integrity. Once is a mistake. A dozen times isn't a mistake. But as I've said again and again, the intentionality isn't the issue. The issue is, Reuters can't be trusted to produce a factual, unbiased report.

I'm just guessing, but one reason may be Reuters hiring of terrorist propagandists as photographers. It's one of those things that make you go "huh?" Like peace activists sticking people with knives. Huh?
 
So which is it, guys? Get your stories straight.
I am not responsible for what another user says. If you want to know why he says something, ask him, not me.


Maybe we don't need any photos at all. Maybe everybody knows everything and we don't need facts or evidence. Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe we could be a little less snippy and we'd get somewhere, hmm?

At a murder trial, the murder weapon is key evidence. No prosecutor is dumb enough to say, "We know he was shot, we don't need to see a gun." Your argument is so weak I can't believe you keep repeating it.
Actually a number of murder trials achieve conviction without having a murder weapon. A weapon helps, but is not strictly necessary. If that were true, all you'd need to do is destroy the weapon you used to commit a crime and you'd get off.

No, no I don't.
Ok, I'm gonna assume you're new at this and give you the benefit of the doubt here.

This is how it works.

1. You make a claim about something (In this case, you claim the cropping was a deliberate political move)

2. Someone else contests that claim (In this case, I contend that it was accidental)

3. You provide evidence to support your original claim or withdraw it.

You DO need to show that Reuters intentionally manipulated the photo with the intent to deceive people

After they got caught.
Someone pointing out a mistake that you are un-aware of is generally how mistakes get corrected.

And nothing to suggest it wasn't. See my earlier comments about journalistic integrity. Once is a mistake. A dozen times isn't a mistake. But as I've said again and again, the intentionality isn't the issue. The issue is, Reuters can't be trusted to produce a factual, unbiased report.
The issue is you cannot provide any solid proof in this particular instance that this photo was doctored intentionally for political reasons. If you cannot do that, your claim becomes worthless. I dont care about other events right now, if you want to address them, start a new thread that deals with those other incidents.

I'm just guessing, but one reason may be Reuters hiring of terrorist propagandists as photographers. It's one of those things that make you go "huh?" Like peace activists sticking people with knives. Huh?
Can you prove that Reuters does this?
 
Last edited:
This is how it works.

1. You make a claim about something (In this case, you claim the cropping was a deliberate political move)

2. Someone else contests that claim (In this case, I contend that it was accidental)

3. You provide evidence to support your original claim or withdraw it.

You DO need to show that Reuters intentionally manipulated the photo with the intent to deceive people


Someone pointing out a mistake that you are un-aware of is generally how mistakes get corrected.

The issue is you cannot provide any solid proof in this particular instance that this photo was doctored intentionally for political reasons. If you cannot do that, your claim becomes worthless. I dont care about other events right now, if you want to address them, start a new thread that deals with those other incidents.

Can you prove that Reuters does this?

Where did I say Reuters actions were deliberate? I plainly said we don't need to know Reuters' motives. I said that several times. Your argument is a straw man.

And yes Reuters' history is very relevant. It shows a pattern of deception. Accidental deception ... if you prefer LOL. Just like Reuters seems to hire a lot of terrorist sympathizers, and just like they keep doctoring the evidence. Accidentally, of course. :roll:

Now you're saying Reuters history of misstating the facts is irrelevant. Just like the knife and the pool of blood are irrelevant. My friend, you have zero credibility left.
 
Where did I say Reuters actions were deliberate? I plainly said we don't need to know Reuters' motives. I said that several times. Your argument is a straw man.
Then what the hell is your point?

And yes Reuters' history is very relevant. It shows a pattern of deception. Accidental deception ... if you prefer LOL. Just like Reuters seems to hire a lot of terrorist sympathizers, and just like they keep doctoring the evidence. Accidentally, of course. :roll:
Patterns dont mean anything unless there's a purpose behind the patterns, which you cannot supply.

Now you're saying Reuters history of misstating the facts is irrelevant. Just like the knife and the pool of blood are irrelevant. My friend, you have zero credibility left.
Im saying it's irrelevant to this particular incident. If you're going to try to throw the subject off, be less obvious about it.

Yes. But can you believe it?
Try me.
 
Then what the hell is your point?

Patterns dont mean anything unless there's a purpose behind the patterns, which you cannot supply.

If Ford Fiestas have a pattern of blowing up when they go over 20 miles per hour, I don't need proof of malicious intent to know that the mistake lies with Ford, the responsibility lies with Ford, and that I don't want to drive a Fiesta. I can know all that without having proof of intent.


You dismissed Reuters' history as irrelevant. Now you're saying I should prove my historical comment. I guess you think I have nothing better to do than go around in circles with you. Not gonna happen. :(
 
Last edited:
If Ford Fiestas have a pattern of blowing up when they go over 20 miles per hour, I don't need proof of malicious intent to know that the mistake lies with Ford, the responsibility lies with Ford, and that I don't want to drive a Fiesta. I can know all that without having proof of intent.



You dismissed Reuters' history as irrelevant. Now you're saying I should prove my historical comment. I guess you think I have nothing better to do than go around in circles with you. Not gonna happen. :(
Done with this troll
 
LOL

I love it.
When common sense goes against the position you take up on an issue, just scream for "EVIDENCE, PROOF, EVIDENCE, PROOF". Then weasel your way out of everything because the only proof that you would accept is Reuters admitting they did it for political purposes.

Sadly its like a pee wee herman game of "I know you are but what am I?"


Use some common freaking sense, Im sick of this "PROOF EVIDENCE PROOF EVIDENCE" argument when you know damned well this is all opinion stuff, and if your opinion lacks common sense, sucks to be you.

The fact that they have made multiple errors, years apart, on photographs depicting conflict between Israel/Palestine (or supporters), and every time these "honest mistakes" turned out to make Palestine (or their supporters) look more positive towards their readers/viewers is NOT an "honest mistake" at all.

Failure to see this is the result of blind following, or a serious pro Palestine bias of your own.

One should not have to prove that which is common sense.
 
If it's so common, then finding proof for it shouldn't be a challenge.

A man robs a bank at gunpoint. He is guilty of robbery. His motive is irrelevant. You want to make this all about intent. Intent is irrelevant. You're the defense attorney at the bank robber's trial shouting, "You can't prove his motive!" despite incontrovertible physical evidence.

Reuters shows a pattern of manipulating the facts (photos). That is the only thing that is relevant here. Epic fail.
 
Last edited:
One should not have to prove that which is common sense.

You are right. It's even an established legal concept: res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself."

Res ipsa loquitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the reason why the anti-Israel crowd is okay with hiding evidence and then claiming there's no "proof." The evidence they're trying to hide is damning.
 
A man robs a bank at gunpoint. He is guilty of robbery. His motive is irrelevant. You want to make this all about intent. Intent is irrelevant. You're the defense attorney at the bank robber's trial shouting, "You can't prove his motive!" despite incontrovertible physical evidence.

Reuters shows a pattern of manipulating the facts (photos). That is the only thing that is relevant here. Epic fail.

No, epic fail is your horrid false analogies.

We are including intent because intent is the only thing that could be explain why (if this was nothing more than an honest mistake) Reuters would do what it is accused of doing.

You cannot prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. So you attack Reuters' history, and then try to use past mistakes as evidence that Reuters does this knowingly and willingly. Burden of proof is on you since you were the one with the ridiculous claim. Do not get so upset because you cannot substantiate your assertion. It is not our fault your claim is baseless and devoid of factual reasoning.
 
You are right. It's even an established legal concept: res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself."

Res ipsa loquitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the reason why the anti-Israel crowd is okay with hiding evidence and then claiming there's no "proof." The evidence they're trying to hide is damning.

That has to do with negligence when a crime is committed. Mistakingly cropping a photo in a way that does not please Israel (shocking!) is not a crime. Great job with the irrelevant material!
 
No, epic fail is your horrid false analogies.

We are including intent because intent is the only thing that could be explain why (if this was nothing more than an honest mistake) Reuters would do what it is accused of doing.

You cannot prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. So you attack Reuters' history, and then try to use past mistakes as evidence that Reuters does this knowingly and willingly. Burden of proof is on you since you were the one with the ridiculous claim. Do not get so upset because you cannot substantiate your assertion. It is not our fault your claim is baseless and devoid of factual reasoning.

Reuters, at the end of the day, clearly edited photo to portray Israel in a poor light.

Yes, they have bias. Get used to it, the world is biased and if you can't handle that then, well, I suggest C-SPAN and the Gilmore Girls.
 
Reuters, at the end of the day, clearly edited photo to portray Israel in a poor light.
At the end of the day, you have nothing but your own biased opinion that Reuters did this purposefully (knowingly and willingly) with the intent "to portray Israel in a poor light".
Yes, they have bias. Get used to it, the world is biased and if you can't handle that then, well, I suggest C-SPAN and the Gilmore Girls.
Fail. Come back when you can prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. There's this thing called burden of proof. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it is really common when debating.
 
At the end of the day, you have nothing but your own biased opinion that Reuters did this purposefully (knowingly and willingly) with the intent "to portray Israel in a poor light".

It's generally acknowledged that removing the weapons of the "peace activists" made the Israelies look like war-mad idiots. Are you saying that the exclusion of the weapons portrayed Israel in a better light?

Fail. Come back when you can prove Reuters did this knowingly and willingly. There's this thing called burden of proof. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it is really common when debating.

You've been watching too many Law and Order episodes. The photographer took X picture, Reuter's edited it to Y. They did this willingly and knowingly because they later apologized for it.

Both in 2006 and 2010 they admited and apologized for the photo edits. They deny political motivation, but it is conclusive that it was done (cue Law and Order theme) "knowingly and willingly."
 
Back
Top Bottom