U.S. Newspapers Cure Reuters, or Are Complicit

The current exposure of Reuters’ clear bias in reporting on Israel continues with more photos photoshopped (see here, and here, for examples, and here for a current wrap-up), and its dispatch on the proposed draft resolution for the UN Security Council a misrepresentation of Lebanese views.

· What needs to be understood is that these are neither passing errors but rather part and parcel of Reuters’ longstanding and insistent bias against Israel.
· What needs to be understood is that this bias is a purposeful part of Reuters operating procedure and of its commercial strategy.
· What needs to be understood is that U.S. newspapers are a major source of Reuters’ revenue, and Reuters’ credibility is enhanced by being carried in U.S. newspapers.
· What needs to be understood, AND ACTED UPON, is that truth will not pressure Reuters to reform but only the complaints from these prime customers, the U.S. newspapers that pay for Reuters’ newswire.

Reuters Record of Bias:

CAMERA, a respected media watchdog of reporting on Israel, has repeatedly documented Reuters’ irresponsible treatment of Israel. Below are several CAMERA reports from 2001 to 2004.

There’s Reuters’ refusal to use the word “terrorist”, its managing editor pleading Reuters “cannot be perceived as offending terrorists lest its journalists be endangered in volatile areas.”

CAMERA report, “Reuters: News Agency or Political Advocacy Group?”, continues:

Reuters, the influential news agency headquartered in London, whose wire service stories appear in print, broadcast and web media outlets, routinely uses partisan, distorted terminology in its Middle East news reports. It not only bans the word “terrorism” generally but uses language that continually seeks to explain and obscure Palestinian violence.

CAMERA issued an update on Reuters’ policy toward terrorists:

Ever since Reuter's notorious editorial decision not to call terrorists “terrorists” was affirmed following the 9/11 attacks (“We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.’” Stephen Jukes, Reuters Global Head of News), the news agency has zealously adhered to a policy of softening the face of terrorism.

In another CAMERA report, Reuters photo abuse was documented, "Reuters Photos the Picture of Bias.”:

Here, the news service displays a pattern of misrepresentations and double standards in many of the photos it distributes. Reuters' focus tends heavily toward images of Palestinians as victims, with few, if any, pictures of Israeli victims.

And, here in 2004 CAMERA reports, “Reuters and AP Echo Hezbollah”:

Reuters and Associated Press covered the slaying of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists on July 20, 2004 in reports that could have come straight from Al Manar, Hezbollah’s main propaganda engine.

Reuters Commercial Motivation:

Roger Simon hits the nail on the head:

… it is worth noting that in order to justify this kind of behavior... hiring the heavily biased... to yourself, you have to pretend you are doing it for a "greater good." In this case that would not seem to be easy since Hezbollah is well known to be a religious fascist organization with sub-Medieval values rooted in misogyny, homophobia and the utter defeat of the Enlightenment. So how then do you find this "greater good" outside the financial viability of your institution? [Emphasis Added]

Reuters’ reporting honesty fades behind Reuters’ catering to its worldwide audience in countries hostile to Israel. Reuters seeks to obscure:

We do not take sides and attempt to reflect in our stories, pictures and video the views of all sides. We are not in the business of glorifying one side or another or of disseminating propaganda. Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views.

But, Reuters’ record says otherwise.

Of course, as Reuters’ “Strategy” statement says: “One of Reuters key competitive strengths is the relationship it has built with customers over two decades…”

Reuters calls the U.S.’ leading newspapers as its “Partners.”

Partner US NewspapersAmerica's leading newspapers trust the Reuters global news team to provide fast, accurate, unbiased and reliable news coverage and news photo images in support of their hometown, editorial operations.For the best in U.S. city/regional news coverage, visit Reuters client newspaper news sites.
Boston Globe
Boston Herald
Houston Chronicle
Los Angeles Times
New York Post
The New York Times
Newark Star Ledger
Orange County Register
Philadelphia Inquirer
San Antonio Express News
San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle
Seattle Times
USA Today
Washington Post
Washington Times
Wall Street Journal

Links are provided.

Reuters U.S. “Partner” Newspapers Must Demand Reuters’ Reforms

Reuters’ management is obviously aware of and consciously engaged in dishonest journalism. When caught publicly redhanded, as with the current photoshops, it still equivocates.

Reuters owes us an explanation -- in fact, a couple of them. First, how did the editors at Reuters manage to miss the crude alterations Hajj made to the image in question? Is it because his doctoring helped bolster their own agenda in covering this war? Second and even more importantly, why has Reuters not pulled all Hajj images from their service? If he was willing to doctor his photos with Photoshop, why would anyone trust him not to stage his other efforts at photojournalism for his own political purposes?

That will not happen, unless Reuters is literally forced to both fess up and reform. Last week, I proposed:

Media organizations, including drawing on outside experts, owe journalism, the American and global audiences, an immediate public self-examination, in depth, without the excuses and cover-ups journalists are so quick to accuse others.

Media associations must take the lead in this examination, or newspapers and TV networks will suffer continuing decline of readers and viewers as their credibility keeps tanking.

They will not do so unless pressured by their customers, the readers and viewers.

Therefore, return to the above list of Reuters’ “Partners.” A list of leading newspaper websites is available here. You can also quickly get the website for almost any newspaper in the country, with simple clicks to state or region, in order to reach more.

I suggest a simple letter to the ombudsman (sometimes called readers representative or public editor), and to the editor, along the following lines:

I depend upon your newspaper for reliable information. Your use of Reuters’ reports and photos on the current Israel-Hezbollah war, which have been proven false and irresponsible, undermines my confidence. These are not exceptions for Reuters but part of a longstanding bias, as documented for example by CAMERA. Please convey to Reuters your requirement that Reuters publicly investigate the current failures of journalistic standards, reveal the results and its specific personnel and reporting procedures reforms. Please also convey to Reuters that your newspapers’ continued clientage is dependent upon the open thoroughness of this minimal responsibility to be depended upon by you. I will be watching to see whether I can depend upon you to deliver quality journalism by demanding this of your newswires.