• 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 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?



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."
The question was motivation and as far as I can see, there's no evidence to support this being a politically motivated act.
 
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.

How does it show Israel in a poor light? That doesn't even make sense. I suggest that your own bias is getting in the way of honestly looking at this.
 
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?
Did they knowingly remove the weapon? Jesus, it's not that difficult to understand. They already explained the procedures they take in cropping ALL their photos.


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."
Really...? That obtuse...? Reuters is accused of cropping the photo to portray Israel in a bad light. You cannot prove that they just cropped the photo and say it also proves that their intent was to show Israel in a bad light. We are looking for proof that Reuters knowingly removed the knife to portray Israel in a bad light. No one has provided any, including you.
 
Did they knowingly remove the weapon? Jesus, it's not that difficult to understand. They already explained the procedures they take in cropping ALL their photos.

Funny, then, that they apologized.


Really...? That obtuse...? Reuters is accused of cropping the photo to portray Israel in a bad light. You cannot prove that they just cropped the photo and say it also proves that their intent was to show Israel in a bad light. We are looking for proof that Reuters knowingly removed the knife to portray Israel in a bad light. No one has provided any, including you.

But they apologized for it. I'm not so certain, but when one is innocent; there's nothing to retract.
 
How does it show Israel in a poor light? That doesn't even make sense. I suggest that your own bias is getting in the way of honestly looking at this.

I'm just rephrasing Reuter's own phrasing. If you don't understand me, it must be a comphrehension issue.
 
I'm just rephrasing Reuter's own phrasing. If you don't understand me, it must be a comphrehension issue.

As what you state isn't factually true, it would be kind of a comphrehension issue. It doesn't show Israel in a poor light.
 
Funny, then, that they apologized.

But they apologized for it. I'm not so certain, but when one is innocent; there's nothing to retract.
Yes, they apologized for it. Is that an admittance of guilt that they purposely cropped the photo to put Israel in a bad light? No.
 
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".

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.

There's no "proof," not even in a court of law. There's "beyond a reasonable doubt," which isn't even necessary here since we're not in court. If a rabid dog bites a man, that dog should be put down. There's no need to prove the "intent" of the dog. Reuters' reporting is biased and unreliable. I don't need to know or even care what their motives are.
 
There's no "proof," not even in a court of law. There's "beyond a reasonable doubt," which isn't even necessary here since we're not in court. If a rabid dog bites a man, that dog should be put down. There's no need to prove the "intent" of the dog. Reuters' reporting is biased and unreliable. I don't need to know or even care what their motives are.

Again with the stupid false analogies. You're only repeating the same stuff over and over again. Stating your opinions as if they were facts is not a great way to start here.
 
Again with the stupid false analogies. You're only repeating the same stuff over and over again. Stating your opinions as if they were facts is not a great way to start here.


Wow, there sure are a lot of apologists for Reuters in here dancing as hard as they can to excuse something that when caught Reuters itself didn't excuse from the Photog, and Editor. First off, straight from my wife whom is a Graphic artist, and has worked for a Tribune owned paper for going on 20 years, Cropping is in this day and age used primarily for taking out parts of a particular photo that are not relevant to the photos story it is telling, like excess sky, and or other things that will not change the pictures focus. Now you can say that the focus is on the solider, however the man standing off to the right holding the knife is of importance to the photo as well, and would have shown whom the attackers in the story were. Reuters, as I have shown before intentionally alters its photos, and has even allowed itself to be led around by the Hezbollah, Hamas thugs giving only one viewpoint to advance its own agenda.

Those making excuses for them I suspect follow, and agree with that agenda.


j-mac
 
As what you state isn't factually true, it would be kind of a comphrehension issue. It doesn't show Israel in a poor light.

Then why did Reuter's admit that it did? If the photos portrayed Israel in no different light, why retract the doctored photos?

Yes, they apologized for it. Is that an admittance of guilt that they purposely cropped the photo to put Israel in a bad light? No.

Actually, it is. You don't apologize for your innocence.
 
Those making excuses for them I suspect follow, and agree with that agenda.


j-mac

THose who continually demonize the Jewish state support anything that acts to demonize the Jewish statel, so lie about both their own intent and that of those who share it.
 
Then why did Reuter's admit that it did? If the photos portrayed Israel in no different light, why retract the doctored photos?



Actually, it is. You don't apologize for your innocence.

They only admitted that they croped the picture, something they normally do. They never admitted to any bias, so don't pretend one thing is another.
 
Wow, there sure are a lot of apologists for Reuters in here dancing as hard as they can to excuse something that when caught Reuters itself didn't excuse from the Photog, and Editor. First off, straight from my wife whom is a Graphic artist, and has worked for a Tribune owned paper for going on 20 years, Cropping is in this day and age used primarily for taking out parts of a particular photo that are not relevant to the photos story it is telling, like excess sky, and or other things that will not change the pictures focus. Now you can say that the focus is on the solider, however the man standing off to the right holding the knife is of importance to the photo as well, and would have shown whom the attackers in the story were. Reuters, as I have shown before intentionally alters its photos, and has even allowed itself to be led around by the Hezbollah, Hamas thugs giving only one viewpoint to advance its own agenda.

Those making excuses for them I suspect follow, and agree with that agenda.


j-mac

J, no one is dancing. The claim of bias is simply unproven. Your side is only being asked to do more than spout of claims, but to provide something that amounts to or at least looks like evidence. At no time would it be reasonable to believe anyone looking at the picture thought anything other than that he was injuried by those on the boat. His wounds are clear, as is the fact that he is surrounded. There is no evidence of anything that even smells of bias. And, no one has produced the article the pictures appeared in to suggest the written word accompaning the picutres said anything biased.

Again, address the argument before you and don't drift off into strawman territory.
 
J, no one is dancing. The claim of bias is simply unproven. Your side is only being asked to do more than spout of claims, but to provide something that amounts to or at least looks like evidence. At no time would it be reasonable to believe anyone looking at the picture thought anything other than that he was injuried by those on the boat. His wounds are clear, as is the fact that he is surrounded. There is no evidence of anything that even smells of bias. And, no one has produced the article the pictures appeared in to suggest the written word accompaning the picutres said anything biased.

Again, address the argument before you and don't drift off into strawman territory.


First off, that is just pure horse hockey. I gave you a specific example from a group that did a study of headlines out of Reuters that showed exactly that pattern.

Second, That you chose to ignore this, and ignore anything other than the replies that fit your conclusions shows your own bias in this discussion.

And lastly, We have had many discussions about media bias in our years of knowing each other here in the net, and the one thing that I have come to know about you Joe, is that in your mind there can be no bias in the media unless it disagrees with the liberal narrative. ie Fox.

As I have shown you I don't come at this with out any knowledge at all, I have an expert living in the house with me. And trust me when I say that she is totally impartial, to the point that when shown the side by sides from pg 25 of this thread, she then told me that the cropping could have been done merely to make the soldier more the focus, without regard to the knife being held over him. So, although this particular pic may not be inconclusive proof in itself, it sure smells bad considering the trend that Reuters has in this particular story line between the Palestinians and Jews.


j-mac
 
First off, that is just pure horse hockey. I gave you a specific example from a group that did a study of headlines out of Reuters that showed exactly that pattern.

Second, That you chose to ignore this, and ignore anything other than the replies that fit your conclusions shows your own bias in this discussion.

And lastly, We have had many discussions about media bias in our years of knowing each other here in the net, and the one thing that I have come to know about you Joe, is that in your mind there can be no bias in the media unless it disagrees with the liberal narrative. ie Fox.

As I have shown you I don't come at this with out any knowledge at all, I have an expert living in the house with me. And trust me when I say that she is totally impartial, to the point that when shown the side by sides from pg 25 of this thread, she then told me that the cropping could have been done merely to make the soldier more the focus, without regard to the knife being held over him. So, although this particular pic may not be inconclusive proof in itself, it sure smells bad considering the trend that Reuters has in this particular story line between the Palestinians and Jews.


j-mac

My expert opinion concurs with your experts opinion. Also I would like to add we do not know what the knife is doing where as we do know what the soldier is doing.
 
First off, that is just pure horse hockey. I gave you a specific example from a group that did a study of headlines out of Reuters that showed exactly that pattern.

Second, That you chose to ignore this, and ignore anything other than the replies that fit your conclusions shows your own bias in this discussion.

And lastly, We have had many discussions about media bias in our years of knowing each other here in the net, and the one thing that I have come to know about you Joe, is that in your mind there can be no bias in the media unless it disagrees with the liberal narrative. ie Fox.

As I have shown you I don't come at this with out any knowledge at all, I have an expert living in the house with me. And trust me when I say that she is totally impartial, to the point that when shown the side by sides from pg 25 of this thread, she then told me that the cropping could have been done merely to make the soldier more the focus, without regard to the knife being held over him. So, although this particular pic may not be inconclusive proof in itself, it sure smells bad considering the trend that Reuters has in this particular story line between the Palestinians and Jews.


j-mac

J. any idiot can call something a study. But a study that starts with an invalid supposition isn't valid. The study does not show bias. All the study you used showed was that the headlines did not fit in with the bias of the people doing the "study."

That's important to realize.

Second nothing has been ignored on my part. The study has been addressed. It simply doesn't do what you think it does. Only those holding a bias thinks it proves their point.

And yes, we have had many discussions, but you still don't understand. Bias can only be proven by showing use of language (like radical liberals or Facist conservatives) or by repeated inaccuracies without consequences, like with Stephen Hayes, someone putting out misinformation and keeping his job. Until you have a study that tackles these things, you haven't presented one. YOu simply cannot show bias by opinion polls. You can't show bias by looking at use of think tanks. YOu can't show bias by voting habits. And you can't even have someone say there is bias, no matter who that someone is. You have to tackle language and inaccuracy.

J, I state clearly, and always have, what constitutes evidence for me. I spell it out clearly and explain why.

As for this case, you must show Reuters dilberately sought to create a false represntaiotn of what happened. So far, no one has done this.
 
J. any idiot can call something a study. But a study that starts with an invalid supposition isn't valid. The study does not show bias. All the study you used showed was that the headlines did not fit in with the bias of the people doing the "study."

That's important to realize.


Ha! that's a real hoot Joe. You actually made me snort a little here. Look, I forget the person that said this but it is like the porn reference, I can't show you what bias is, but I sure know it when I see it.

Your dismissal of the way that reuters manipulates headlines in order to show Israel as the aggressor and Palestine as the victim clearly demonstrates a bias in reporting that story.


Second nothing has been ignored on my part. The study has been addressed. It simply doesn't do what you think it does. Only those holding a bias thinks it proves their point.

No, the clearly articulated article showing headlines addressing the bias that exists is indeed ignored by you, and the parameters of determining bias shifts to ever increasing levels of proof rendering it impossible to have you acknowledge the clear bias.


And yes, we have had many discussions, but you still don't understand. Bias can only be proven by showing use of language (like radical liberals or Facist conservatives) or by repeated inaccuracies without consequences, like with Stephen Hayes, someone putting out misinformation and keeping his job. Until you have a study that tackles these things, you haven't presented one. YOu simply cannot show bias by opinion polls. You can't show bias by looking at use of think tanks. YOu can't show bias by voting habits. And you can't even have someone say there is bias, no matter who that someone is. You have to tackle language and inaccuracy.


Using your own levels of proof then please lay out for us how Stephen Hayes is biased in a journalistic standard (not opinion piece) and be sure and include for us the studies to back up your claim.


J, I state clearly, and always have, what constitutes evidence for me. I spell it out clearly and explain why.

No, I don't think you have.


As for this case, you must show Reuters dilberately sought to create a false represntaiotn of what happened. So far, no one has done this.

they did this through their cropping, and by employing it as they did, in this case, my opinion is that the removal of the knife was an omission of that fact. Although debatable, it is my contention that they admitted it themselves by changing the photo used, and firing the photog, and editor involved.


j-mac
 
That's you problem j. You miss your own bias in what you see. Many know that our bias can lead us to wrong conclusions. Those who don't understand this always fall back on they just know. But no one will ever win a debate with such silliness. You have to actually provide valid evidence.

And j, what you call my own levels is a clear articulation of what needs to be provided to prove bias. So, you can't say I give it in one breath and don't in another. But I'll repeated for you one more time:

And yes, we have had many discussions, but you still don't understand. Bias can only be proven by showing use of language (like radical liberals or Facist conservatives) or by repeated inaccuracies without consequences, like with Stephen Hayes, someone putting out misinformation and keeping his job. Until you have a study that tackles these things, you haven't presented one. You simply cannot show bias by opinion polls. You can't show bias by looking at use of think tanks. You can't show bias by voting habits. And you can't even have someone say there is bias, no matter who that someone is. You have to tackle language and inaccuracy.

And for this picture, what did the cropping do? DO you really believe not seeing the knife meant the soldier hurt himself, fell down, or was injured by his own people? Seriously, the cropping alone proves nothing other than they picture was cropped. It says nothing at all about bias or motive. You have to provide evidence to move this forward.
 
Then why did Reuter's admit that it did? If the photos portrayed Israel in no different light, why retract the doctored photos?
Because their are people like you in this world where the smallest honest mistake turns into outrage over a nonexistent issue. They retracted the cropped photos because of people like YOU, who feel the urge to complain and create issues.

Actually, it is. You don't apologize for your innocence.
They apologized for cropping the photo. That is not the same thing as an admittance of journalistic bias, and it is petty and pathetic of you to suggest that they are equivalents. You have yet to provide an substantiation that Reuters knowingly and willingly cropped the photos to put Israel in a bad light.
 
That's you problem j. You miss your own bias in what you see. Many know that our bias can lead us to wrong conclusions. Those who don't understand this always fall back on they just know. But no one will ever win a debate with such silliness. You have to actually provide valid evidence.

And j, what you call my own levels is a clear articulation of what needs to be provided to prove bias. So, you can't say I give it in one breath and don't in another. But I'll repeated for you one more time:



And for this picture, what did the cropping do? DO you really believe not seeing the knife meant the soldier hurt himself, fell down, or was injured by his own people? Seriously, the cropping alone proves nothing other than they picture was cropped. It says nothing at all about bias or motive. You have to provide evidence to move this forward.


So you refuse to adhere to your own standards when you just throw out trash about Hayes and then refuse to back it up? I suppose that Allensky would be proud. However, more evidence has been given, even side by sides of the before and after only to have you dismiss it, so I suspect that the only bias you see is that which disagrees with your own world view, and that is truly sad.


j-mac
 
So you refuse to adhere to your own standards when you just throw out trash about Hayes and then refuse to back it up? I suppose that Allensky would be proud. However, more evidence has been given, even side by sides of the before and after only to have you dismiss it, so I suspect that the only bias you see is that which disagrees with your own world view, and that is truly sad.


j-mac

Backed Hayes up earlier (not to mention I've shown it to you in the past). But let's not get too far off track, the point was how you prove bias. You still haven't addressed that. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom