• 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

Re: Omfg!

Until I saw that cropped photo, I thought the whole affair was the result of a lot of pig-headed people in an ugly situation. But once I saw that cropped photo, I realized that it was entirely the fault of the pig-headed Israelis. But now that I saw the uncropped photo I realized it was entirely the fault of the pig-headed people on the ship.
Wow, it's just so freaking amazing the power of that one single photo. Totally changed my entire world view in re the ME. OMFG!

Or maybe not. Maybe I still think its all the result of a bunch of hardheaded morons on the other side of the planet.

Simon,

Why are you taking pains to stand in an illusory middle ground? There was nothing "moronic" about Israel's response. They were well within their rights to interdict and the soldiers responded to violence with violence. Israel was right and the flotilla was wrong.
 
Not it does not I admit that. Reuters should not have done it. But the credibility of the whistle blower and the motive is very much an issue here. It is not like Fox News is unbiased on this issue is it now...And that is what is the problem. This case is being blown out of proportions because it happens to fit in the Fox News view of that media are biased against Israel and that is rich coming for a news organisation that is biased FOR Israel and highly biased on all other fronts.

Pete,

Why are you fixating on Fox News? They merely reported a factual occurrence, that is, Reuters cropped a photo; the editorializing was added by a blogger, not Fox News.

Are you trying to say that Reuters didn't crop the photo, because that's the only thing Fox News has reported here. I honestly don't understand why you keep bringing them up.
 
Number one- there is a knife in a hand- no face shown. This isn't evidence against a particular individual. Number two- a stab-type wound in the lower abdomen isn't typical as the result of an accident. Accidental injuries that cause cuts tend to be on the periphery of the body, unless one falls on a sharp object and the trunk is pierced. I suppose the soldier may have "fallen" on the knife of whoever was holding it.;)
The point is there is no proof for ANY of the possible events and therefore putting a picture up that suggests one is a political move.
 
Re: Omfg!

Simon,

Why are you taking pains to stand in an illusory middle ground? There was nothing "moronic" about Israel's response. They were well within their rights to interdict and the soldiers responded to violence with violence. Israel was right and the flotilla was wrong.
I am in no pain.

From what I can tell, it takes two to tango. Remove either side and the issue goes away. It takes both the Israelis and the Palestinians being hard-headed to make a conflict over there.

People go back and forth about who has the right to what and the right to do what. Blah, blah, blah. You know what? All that talk about who's right hasn't helped one bit.
Perhaps Alexander will cut the knot sometime.
 
Re: Omfg!

I am in no pain.

From what I can tell, it takes two to tango. Remove either side and the issue goes away. It takes both the Israelis and the Palestinians being hard-headed to make a conflict over there.

People go back and forth about who has the right to what and the right to do what. Blah, blah, blah. You know what? All that talk about who's right hasn't helped one bit.
Perhaps Alexander will cut the knot sometime.

Well actually you couldn't be more wrong.
It takes only one side to start a conflict.
 
Re: Omfg!

I am in no pain.

From what I can tell, it takes two to tango. Remove either side and the issue goes away. It takes both the Israelis and the Palestinians being hard-headed to make a conflict over there.

Simon,

It takes two to tango, yes, but we're not talking about dancing right now. Hamas is engaged in an aggressive military campaign against the Jews simply because of a perceived religious obligation to exterminate them. Obviously, this is not the Jews or Israel's fault.

People go back and forth about who has the right to what and the right to do what. Blah, blah, blah. You know what? All that talk about who's right hasn't helped one bit.
Perhaps Alexander will cut the knot sometime.

It hasn't helped because one side is a peaceable liberal democracy and the other side is a group of religious extremists who are hellbent on exterminating the Jews. I know which side I'm on.
 
You've been whooshed.

The point of that comment is that no on thought that. It's pretty obvious that the guy had takena beating.

A whole bunch of us got whooshed. That darn Boo set us all up.:lol:
 
It happens all the time, and Fox News does it constantly when it is not using wrong pictures, or false footage to prove its "facts". Hence, it is ironic like hell that Fox News is calling out Reuters like this. Just shows how biased Fox News is, by using any and all means to "prove" that the IDF is right and the activists are terrorists.. Fox News and facts are an oxymoron.

Yes, FOX News has done stuff like that before, but does that make it OK for Reuters to do the same kinds of photoshopping of pictures? Of course it doesn't. Yet, while you are quick to slam FOX News, you seem to be making excuses for Reuters because FOX News has photoshopped pictures in the past. There is actually no excuse for either, and the only way I can see why you are posting what you are is because you hate Israel for the sake of hating Israel. You seem to have established a pattern here, along with your other posts, that borders on anti-Semitism.

Moreover, this thread is not about FOX News. It is about Reuters. Feel free to start a thread on FOX News at any time, but this thread is about Reuters photoshopping pictures from the flotilla clash. I can say that I speak for most people here when I ask that you stay on topic, and not attempt to derail this thread, which is NOT about FOX News.
 
Re: Omfg!

It hasn't helped because one side is a peaceable liberal democracy and the other side is a group of religious extremists who are hellbent on exterminating the Jews. I know which side I'm on.
I know which side I am on as well. I am on the United States' side.

Since it's so clear cut, perhaps we can have it all worked out before the half-hour episode is over.
 
Re: Omfg!

I know which side I am on as well. I am on the United States' side.
I don't think one actually requires a "side" to conclude that Reuters engaged in journalistic dishonesty here and then vigorously denied a nefarious motive.

Indeed, you don't have to be a surgeon to recognize a hack job.
 
Re: Omfg!

I don't think one actually requires a "side" to conclude that Reuters engaged in journalistic dishonesty here and then vigorously denied a nefarious motive.

Indeed, you don't have to be a surgeon to recognize a hack job.

That's true on Reuters.
I'm curious why the IHH website mentioned in post one put the original image up. The knife isn't held in an aggressive manner (i.e. holding it ready to stab) but seems held by the tip of the handle.
 
Re: Omfg!

That's true on Reuters.
I'm curious why the IHH website mentioned in post one put the original image up. The knife isn't held in an aggressive manner (i.e. holding it ready to stab) but seems held by the tip of the handle.
Looking at the prone and bloodied soldier, it seems to me the aggression had already occurred. Don't know if it occurred with that particular knife. On the face of it, this is additional visual evidence that the activists did indeed have weapons which directly contradicts their position of being unarmed.
 
In all cases, I see specific people who tried to slip a fake photo in and were caught and fired by Reuters who 'fessed up immediately, apologized, and blacklisted the photographers and editors in question.

I'm failing to see the fault of Reuters, somebody they employed screwed up and they rectified the problem and came clean.

And nobody has yet answered me when I asked WHY Reuters would doctor the photo in the OP. What the motivation would be.


It's not whether or not Reuters fired the people involved with the incidents questioned. It is the narrative they chose to follow. That never changed.

Because they as an organization they follow an ideology rather than sticking to the facts, and presenting those facts without bias, they harmed their credibility.

Anyone that is dismissing these instances with a casual 'well, they fired the people' and doesn't realize that from that point that they continued with the narrative that fostered the dishonest reporting in the first place is just excusing it in favor of bolstering their own argument.

The motivation is easy, they are aligned with liberal thinking, and causes, and agree with them.


j-mac
 
It's not whether or not Reuters fired the people involved with the incidents questioned. It is the narrative they chose to follow. That never changed.

Because they as an organization they follow an ideology rather than sticking to the facts, and presenting those facts without bias, they harmed their credibility.
Except NO ONE has been able to tell us what that "ideology" is or provide any reason for why Reuters would intentionally crop a photo to make a point.

The motivation is easy, they are aligned with liberal thinking, and causes, and agree with them.
Prove it.
 
A whole bunch of us got whooshed. That darn Boo set us all up.:lol:

Well, at least you have been. Again, no one believed he fell down or that he wasn't attacked. Since no one believed that, and nothing has been produced to show anything reported that would suggest that (j, that's called the narrative), the entire whining thread is a waste of time.
 
Re: Omfg!

I know which side I am on as well. I am on the United States' side.

So am I. I take the side of all peaceable democratic nations. It's not a hard decision for me to make.

Since it's so clear cut, perhaps we can have it all worked out before the half-hour episode is over.

It is clear-cut. Israel is a peaceable liberal democracy and Hamas is a terrorist organization that seeks to exterminate the Jews. These are the facts, and the sooner we all accept them the sooner this mess in the Middle East will be resolved.
 
Re: Omfg!

The arguments being brought forth by those defending Reuters are pathetic, simple-minded, and straw grasping.

Get a grip.

The point isn't to hide that the soldiers got a beat down from a mob of angry turks, the point is to hide the fact that these "humanitarian" scrubs were armed with Combat Knives. Why would a humanitarian need a Combat Knife?

We aren't trying to convict individuals of anything here, so crying about "We can't see who actually stabbed him!" and all this other nonsense is a non issue.

The fact that Reuters has a history of not only cropping/editing photos that had no clear purpose (except to change opinion) in the past, and also that both times it fell on the same side of the same struggle against the same group (Israel) is not a ****ing coincidence.

Get a grip.
 
Re: Omfg!

I don't think one actually requires a "side" to conclude that Reuters engaged in journalistic dishonesty here and then vigorously denied a nefarious motive.
Indeed, you don't have to be a surgeon to recognize a hack job.
No, it doesn't. But for me to reach that conclusion it require me to assume a great deal that is not in evidence. I haven't seen anything that contradicts the simpler explanation that the photo was centered on the victim and then cropped on all four sides. The victim is, imho, the most compelling element of the image.
 
Last edited:
Re: Omfg!

The point isn't to hide that the soldiers got a beat down from a mob of angry turks, the point is to hide the fact that these "humanitarian" scrubs were armed with Combat Knives.
Yet you STILL have to give us the "why." What on earth does Reuters have to gain by doing this intentionally?

Why would a humanitarian need a Combat Knife?
I can think of ten thousand different uses for a knife beyond putting the pointy end into someone else.

The fact that Reuters has a history of not only cropping/editing photos that had no clear purpose (except to change opinion) in the past, and also that both times it fell on the same side of the same struggle against the same group (Israel) is not a ****ing coincidence.
Except when it happened, Reuters cracked down instantly on the people responsible, fired them, and apologized. If you're trying to subtly influence public opinion via Photoshop, apologizing and publically firing the responsible parties is a pretty crappy way to do it.

And again, what in the name of fresh of holy **** does Reuters stand to gain from doing this? Why do they care?
 
Re: Omfg!

Yet you STILL have to give us the "why." What on earth does Reuters have to gain by doing this intentionally?

They don’t necessarily have to gain anything, but it could merely be that they want to influence news, rather than objectively reporting it. This is nothing new in the media.

I can think of ten thousand different uses for a knife beyond putting the pointy end into someone else.

Sure. If you want to cook, you carry a Henckels or Forschner, if you want to clean your fingernails or pick your teeth, you carry a Swiss Army Knife. If you want to skin out a dead animal, you carry a skinning knife or a filet knife. Combat knives don’t have much for general use besides combat. Their shape and size make them impractical for much of anything else.

And again, what in the name of fresh of holy **** does Reuters stand to gain from doing this? Why do they care?
That’s the point. They shouldn’t care, but obviously someone there does care and wants to influence the news, rather than objectively reporting it. The cropping offers absolutely nothing in the way of emphasizing anything about the soldier.
 
Re: Omfg!

Except when it happened, Reuters cracked down instantly on the people responsible, fired them, and apologized. If you're trying to subtly influence public opinion via Photoshop, apologizing and publically firing the responsible parties is a pretty crappy way to do it.

And again, what in the name of fresh of holy **** does Reuters stand to gain from doing this? Why do they care?

Exactly. Compare that to Stephen Hayes who still has a job:

Hayes is well known for his writings postulating an operational relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. (See Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations). He ended one of his articles by this sentence: "...there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."[2]

Hayes authored a book on this subject entitled: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America [ISBN 0-06-074673-4].

A major source for the articles and book was a leaked memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the U.S. Congress on 27 October 2003.[3]

The DOD issued a statement about the Feith Memo on Nov 15, 2003, which included the following[4]

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
.
.
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.

Stephen F. Hayes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Omfg!

They don’t necessarily have to gain anything, but it could merely be that they want to influence news, rather than objectively reporting it. This is nothing new in the media.
Ok, Reuters is not a villain in a bad B movie. Behaving like a dick in the real world generally requires some motivation. So unless you can show me what Reuters has to gain by "influencing" the media in this way, your theory is suspect.

Sure. If you want to cook, you carry a Henckels or Forschner, if you want to clean your fingernails or pick your teeth, you carry a Swiss Army Knife. If you want to skin out a dead animal, you carry a skinning knife or a filet knife. Combat knives don’t have much for general use besides combat. Their shape and size make them impractical for much of anything else.
Flatly un-true. I have used combat knives for a myriad of purposes. The last one I had was indispensable in the weld shop; the weight combined with the strength made it a wonderful tool.

That’s the point. They shouldn’t care, but obviously someone there does care and wants to influence the news, rather than objectively reporting it. The cropping offers absolutely nothing in the way of emphasizing anything about the soldier.
You cant even demonstrate it was deliberate nor can you provide any real reason for them to do it on purpose. You're so desperate to see a conspiracy that you're standing there pouting because we wont accept "Well, they did it 'cause they COULD!"
 
The IDF admits it tortures and has been caught on camera using human shields.


No they've been caught on camera talking to someone and continuing a house to house weapons inspection with someone they captured in the house to house weapons search.

As for the definite proof of Hamas ... where?

A) They admit freely and proudly.

B) Their human shields are seen in videos of women and children on top of Hamas headquarters. We have loads of video evidence of them stationing themselves in civilian sectors and firing rockets from civilian sectors.
 
Except NO ONE has been able to tell us what that "ideology" is or provide any reason for why Reuters would intentionally crop a photo to make a point.


What? Are you kidding? The ideology is clear in that these individuals working for the news service are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. To that end, in the case that the service either had no checks to moderate these instances of biased reports, or that they willingly let them through only to feign no knowledge of the initial report later and make a show of letting the people involved go, while printing that in some small print, or buried story later is laughable that you are following that kind of line. My kids come up with better excuses.



Prove it.


What proof is there that a defender of this type of bias would accept? None I suspect.


j-mac
 
Sorry but that is the fantasy being promoted by US and Israeli news media and hardly what the rest of the world is saying. In fact the media in Europe is getting all sides of the story including the fact that the protesters were "armed". So having a picture of a man standing with a knife is hardly earth shattering considering the rest of the images and photos already released by the IDF. Like it or not, people have a right to defend themselves when being attacked by armed thugs in international waters.. it is not wise but they have that right.

You mean weapons inspectors conducting a lawful weapons inspection on a ship which was owned and operated by the Jihadist orgaization the IHH, whose stated purpose was to break the blockade into territory controlled by a genocidal terrorist organization that intentionally murders women and children and straps bombs to kids? Those thugs. :roll: You know who else were thugs? All those damned allied Navies blockading Japan and Germany during WW2, those guys were real thugs, I mean they even sunk ships who would conduct such peaceful humanitarian missions attempting to break the blockade.

Do you people even realize how ridiculous you sound?
 
Back
Top Bottom