Medary.com

Some readers may not be aware of the blatant propaganda which was being distributed by media giant Reuters. A stringer in Lebanon named Adnan Hajj doctored two and perhaps more photographs with the result that the damage being done in Lebanon by the Israelis was exaggerated. This column from Canada's Calgary Sun is a good overview:

They say the first casualty of war is Truth. Yesterday, the respected news agency Reuters issued an unprecedented announcement. Essentially, it admitted it unwittingly published propaganda as straight news.

In a released statement, the wire agency announced the withdrawal of all 920 photographs by freelance Lebanese photographer, Adnan Hajj from its database "after an urgent review of his work showed he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hezbollah," said the statement.

Wishful thinking on Reuters' part.

The breaches go far deeper than just two photos.

The American Thinker discusses the problem with stringers:

But beyond the problem of Hajj the fraud is the larger problem of QA for the entire reporting force Reuters and most other news agencies field in Muslim lands. For language reasons, and for personal safety reasons, stringers, not full-time employees, are used to work the ground in places like Qana. Who are they?

One thing we can be certain of, is that they are people who feel reasonably certain they will not be murdered by Hiz b’allah (or Hamas or Saddam, when he was in power) for reporting news inconvenient to those with the guns. This alone is reason to suspect their fairness.

Reuters and other news agencies employing stringers need to be forthright with their public about who these people are and what are the limits under which they operate. Of course, doing so will limit the degree to which their reports are trusted. No doubt, that is why such caveats have rarely if ever been supplied.

When Reuters was still backing Hajj, it made no mention of his status as a stringer. But once he was repudiated, words like "stringer," "part-timer" and "freelance" became suddenly visible.

This will not do.

Trust is not given, it is earned. And it once trust is violated, it is very, very hard to regain. The next time you see a photo or a news item from Reuters, ask yourself why you should trust it, given this sorry spectacle.

Update:  the hits just keep coming for Reuters, from Dinocrat.com (via the American Thinker):

We just asked, "What if it were true?" It wasn’t. The Reuters story was wildly wrong. A new Reuters story now reads this way in the second paragraph:

Choking back tears in an emotional speech to an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Beirut, Siniora said more than 40 civilians were killed in an air raid in a southern village. But he later revised the toll to one.

"He later revised the toll to one." How then did Reuters get the reactions from the residents of that village, Houla, who said they feared that up to 60 people had been killed, and identified them as children and shepherds? Did they get that information from their Hezbollah handlers and allies? You may believe any story from Reuters / Hezbollah at your peril.

I really hate to sound like some wacko conspiracy theorist, but:

You are being lied to.  Again.  Still.  Had enough yet?