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.
Reuters shows a pattern of manipulating the facts (photos). That is the only thing that is relevant here. Epic fail.
Last edited by StevenA59; 06-19-10 at 01:35 PM.
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.
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'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.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.
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."