• 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

Hoplite said:
I'll consider actually taking you seriously.
Click to expand...


No, you won't.
You will find whatever way you can to wiggle free from the suggestion and say, "YOU CAN"T BACK IT UP!"

Typical.
 
Hoplite said:
When someone relegates to personal insults, it's almost an assured assumption to make that they are not approaching a discussion from a solid position of strength and that this is a failing they are aware of and attempt to compensate for by namecalling and insults to detract from the weakness of their position.

Feel free to come back when you have an actual point.
Click to expand...



:roll: didn't you see the smiley face? It was just ribbing. My God, you demo's have thin skins....:lamo


j-mac
 
Re: Omfg!

Boo Radley said:
Objective proof. Not Conservative nut wing says so, but show exactly how. Who would think the soldiers just fell down? What in the article said the soldiers fell down? Be honest that you can question the legal of the Israeli attack and not hate them. Not favor Palestine. But for pete's sake at least try to rpoduce something logical.
Click to expand...


Recognizing this, HonestReporting monitored headlines of Reuters news agency reports on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the one-month period June 10 - July 10, 2003. This critical period commenced with the Israeli strike against Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and ended with the relative calm of the Palestinian hudna.

During this time frame, Reuters issued headlines describing six acts of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, and twelve acts of violence by Israel against Palestinians. Among these, HonestReporting found the following patterns of bias:

1) Named subject

In violent acts against Israelis, the Palestinian agent is named in 33% of the headlines.

In violent acts against Palestinians, the Israeli agent is named in 100% of the headlines. Moreover, Israel is always emphasized by appearing as the first word in the headline.

2) Named object

In violent acts against Israelis, casualties are labeled "Israeli" in 11% of the headlines.

In violent acts against Palestinians, casualties are labeled "Palestinian" or "Hamas" in 50% of the headlines. Considering "militant" as a Palestinian-specific term raises this figure to 71% of headlines.

3) Verb selection

Violent acts by Palestinians are described with "active voice" verbs in 33% of the headlines.

Violent acts by Israelis are described with "active voice" verbs in 100% of the headlines.

A few examples of Reuters headlining Israel in ferocious terms:

"Sharon Vows More Attacks on Militants Despite Talks" (June 15)
"Israel Threatens New Raids After Anti-Hamas Strike" (June 22)
"Israeli Army Swoops in Nablus After Security Talks" (June 23)

Here are three side-by-side comparisons of how Reuters headlines similar violent events involving Israelis and Palestinians:

Example 1:

"Israeli Troops Shoot Dead Palestinian in W.Bank" (July 3)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinian named as victim; described in active voice.

vs.

"New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce" (July 1)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israeli not named as victim; shooting described in passive voice.

Example 2:

"Israel Kills Three Militants; Gaza Deal Seen Close" (June 27)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians ("Militants") named as victims; described in active voice.

vs.

"Bus Blows Up in Central Jerusalem" (June 11)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israelis not named as victims; described in passive voice.

Example 3:

"Israeli Tank Kills 3 Militants in Gaza - Witnesses" (June 22)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians ("Militants") named as victims; described in active voice.

vs.

"Israeli Girl Killed, Fueling Cycle of Violence" (June 18)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; killing described in passive voice.

Not only acts of violence during this period generated biased Reuters headlines. To describe diplomatic events, Reuters consistently grants Palestinian statements neutral or pleading language, while Israeli positions are described in uncompromising, aggressive terms. Compare:

Example 1 — Palestinians are peaceful, while Israel is belligerent:

"Palestinian Islamic Militants Declare Truce" (June 29)

vs.

"Israel Pours Scorn on Cease-fire with Militants" (June 23)

Example 2 — Palestinians are peaceful, while Israel is belligerent:

"Palestinians Urge Israel to Free Prisoners" (July 4)

vs.

"Israel Sets Tough Terms for Prisoner Release" (July 6)

A full list of the Reuters headlines, and notes on our method of analysis, may be found by clicking here.

SUMMARY:

In the world of Reuters headlines, when Israel acts, Israel is always perpetrating an active assault, and the Palestinian victim is consistently identified. But when Palestinian terrorists act, their Israeli victims are faceless, and the Palestinian perpetrators are rarely named nor described in active terms. Moreover, Palestinian diplomats pursue peace, but are frustrated by their obstinate Israeli counterparts.

Reuters' obvious message? Israel is the aggressor, and Palestinians are the victims.

For the past three years, HonestReporting readers have intuitively sensed that Reuters is taking sides in this conflict. HonestReporting's one-month analysis of Reuters' headlines demonstrates that the claim of Reuters' bias is indeed grounded in fact.

In professional journalism, lack of objectivity is the cardinal sin. As one of the world's most broadly syndicated news agencies, Reuters has tremendous influence on Western perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — thereby making its biased stance all the more reprehensible.

Study: Reuters Headlines
Click to expand...


Also, an interesting look at their bias here....

More Reuters Bias | Middle East Facts Weblog


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
:roll: didn't you see the smiley face? It was just ribbing. My God, you demo's have thin skins....:lamo
Click to expand...
And you seem to have a problem sticking to the topic at hand.

Come talk to me again when you can prove your claims
 
Hoplite said:
And you seem to have a problem sticking to the topic at hand.

Come talk to me again when you can prove your claims
Click to expand...

So, no response to the Headlines bias post?
 
Caine said:
So, no response to the Headlines bias post?
Click to expand...
Relying on others to do your work for you? Sad, very sad.

And why should I give time of day to the media analysis that boils down to nothing more than the poster's opinion of what he thinks the headlines mean?
 
Re: Omfg!

j-mac said:
Also, an interesting look at their bias here....

More Reuters Bias | Middle East Facts Weblog


j-mac
Click to expand...

That's so true, and not just for Reuters.
For example, a BBC headline from yesterday reporting on an incident where Palestinian gunmen have ambushed an Israeli police vehicle while it was on a patrol, murdering an Israeli policeman and injured three others.
The BBC headline reads: "Israel policeman killed in W Bank".
No reference to the Palestinians being the perpetrators, no use of active verbs.

Another BBC headline referring to an incident in the 21st of May 2010, where the IDF has shot and killed two Palestinian(Hamas) gunmen infiltrating Israel from the Israeli-Gazan border, reads: "Israel army kills infiltrators from Gaza".
Israel stated as the perpetrators, active verbs used, no mentioning of the Palestinians killed being Hamas militants that were sent on an operation to attack Israel. (As Hamas stated after that incident)

Here are the two articles:
BBC News - Israel army kills infiltrators from Gaza
BBC News - Israeli policeman killed in West Bank shooting
 
Hoplite said:
Relying on others to do your work for you? Sad, very sad.

And why should I give time of day to the media analysis that boils down to nothing more than the poster's opinion of what he thinks the headlines mean?
Click to expand...

And yet you have proven my original assumption to be accurate.

I hope you at least accidentally pull out some earwax while sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA".
 
This is a trumped up nonissue. If you take off the political glasses for a second and look at it from an artistic perspective, it is clear that the cropped version is simply better composition. It features the soldier much more centrally, and crops not only the hands of the bystanders on the right but also a portion of the soldier's legs on the left. I know it might be hard for some of you to believe but not everything decision that is made has sinister political motives. Not to mention the guy on the right is holding, what, a steak knife?
 
Guy Incognito said:
This is a trumped up nonissue. If you take off the political glasses for a second and look at it from an artistic perspective, it is clear that the cropped version is simply better composition. It features the soldier much more centrally, and crops not only the hands of the bystanders on the right but also a portion of the soldier's legs on the left. I know it might be hard for some of you to believe but not everything decision that is made has sinister political motives. Not to mention the guy on the right is holding, what, a steak knife?
Click to expand...


Then why not explain that when they got caught? No, instead they simply put out the uncut version and tried to dismiss anyone with questions about why they tried in the first place. You know who else follows that pattern? Guilty people.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Then why not explain that when they got caught? No, instead they simply put out the uncut version and tried to dismiss anyone with questions about why they tried in the first place. You know who else follows that pattern? Guilty people.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like the pattern followed by innocent people who get caught in a pseudo-scandal brought on by gotcha journalism. They aren't "guilty" of anything, it is absurd to suggest otherwise.

Cropping photos is standard practice for photographers nowadays, and it necessarily takes pieces of a photo out. The substance of this photo is a wounded soldier, and it is cropped to reflect that and place the soldier centrally. All those arms and all that blank space on the left just make for a bad picture. Even looking at the uncropped photo it is clear that the knife isn't the weapon used to wound the soldier, and in the cropped photo it is still clear that protesters are standing over the soldier. The knife is not essential to the context of the photo and the cropped version is not misleading at all. Moreover, it is well know that the protesters carried knives, there are plenty of reports, including Reuters reports to that effect, to that effect. The knife is not that interesting part of the photo, so it was cropped with good reason. To suggest that Reuters cropped to photo to make the protesters look better is disingenuous and frankly fallacious logic.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
This is a trumped up nonissue. If you take off the political glasses for a second and look at it from an artistic perspective, it is clear that the cropped version is simply better composition.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that one up. It was done for art. :roll:

That certainly explains the removal of the pool of blood, too. Messy, messy messy!
 
Gardener said:
Thanks for clearing that one up. It was done for art. :roll:

That certainly explains the removal of the pool of blood, too. Messy, messy messy!
Click to expand...

I see plenty of bloodstains in the cropped version. Try again.
 
I was only talking about the photo in the original post. Now that I've seen the second photo I see what you're talking about, and that is pretty egregious. I guess he was trying to make the protesters look better after all.

By the way, I haven't got an agenda beside honesty.
 
Journalism is about presenting the facts. Photogs and editors should get fired over use of fake photos to advance a political agenda. There's no excuse for it. Reuters has lost all credibility.
 
StevenA59 said:
Journalism is about presenting the facts. Photogs and editors should get fired over use of fake photos to advance a political agenda. There's no excuse for it. Reuters has lost all credibility.
Click to expand...

The photo wasn't fake, was it?
 
Re: Omfg!

j-mac said:
Also, an interesting look at their bias here....

More Reuters Bias | Middle East Facts Weblog


j-mac
Click to expand...

That was a silly read. Like many, I get what you really wante dis biased reporting. Report it as YOU see it, according to your bias, and you'll be happy. Anyone can crop headlines, say hay it doesn't fit my world view, so it must be biased. And frankly, that's what your side of this debate does all the time. The photo was not changed in any way to present anything contray to the facts. We knew who hurt the soldier and that he was hurt. Again, this is an effort on some to turn nothing into something to fit their own bias. Nothing more.
 
Caine said:
So, no response to the Headlines bias post?
Click to expand...

Wasn't much to respond to. TO accept it as bais, I must first agree with your bias. You see it as bias because of your bias. You need something far more objective than what you present.
 
Boo Radley said:
The photo wasn't fake, was it?
Click to expand...

The original photo was edited to hide the truth. Whether you want to call it edited or fake makes no difference. The fact remains the photo was intentionally altered to change its meaning.
 
Boo Radley said:
Wasn't much to respond to. TO accept it as bais, I must first agree with your bias. You see it as bias because of your bias. You need something far more objective than what you present.
Click to expand...

The problem with the edited photos is obvious. Your position goes beyond bias. You are attempting to deny the facts. Perhaps that is the reason you don't have a problem with faked photos.
 
Boo Radley said:
The photo wasn't fake, was it?
Click to expand...

The photo was fake.
It displayed an image contrary to the original image.
The image it displayed was done for the purpose of hiding certain "facts" from view.
 
Caine said:
The photo was fake.
It displayed an image contrary to the original image.
The image it displayed was done for the purpose of hiding certain "facts" from view.
Click to expand...

NO, that would not be correct. No truth was hidden (catching others in this response). No one could reasonably be thought to believe anything other then the soldier was attacked by those on the ship. Believing otherwise is sheer fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom