Yes, that Reuters photo from Lebanon is officially a fake, as were several others by that photographer.
Does this show that the photographer himself is a fraud and a liar? Yes.
Does this show that Reuters is biased and shouldn't be trusted on Mideast news? Probably.
Does this show that "MSM" as a whole is horrible and evil and on the side of the enemy? No, of course not.
Posted by Stephen Silver at August 7, 2006 01:58 PM"Does this show that "MSM" as a whole is horrible and evil and on the side of the enemy? No, of course not. "
Not horrible and evil, but certainly biased and irresponsible. I know you hate her but check out Michelle Malkin's Vent today. It's all about the media and its complicity in being silent on certain events and less than silent on others: http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/08/07/the-jihadis-and-the-jews/
Posted by: Karol at August 7, 2006 03:17 PMGiven that you're a serious sports fan, maybe an appeal to statistics might change your mind. If, to pick three biggies, the Reuters, Dan Rather / Mary Mapes / Bush National Guard, and the Eason Jordan / CNN / "American troops are targeting journalists" stories were aberrations, then where were the aberrations that cut in the other political direction (i.e., pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War, pro-Israel)? If the flipped coin comes up heads every time, it might be time to consider that there's something wrong with it.
Posted by: Benedict at August 7, 2006 04:08 PMReuters fired the photographer, as did several other organizations. His photos were removed from archives. All this incident shows is that there are despicable people trying to profit off this war, and a news organization was suckered by one of them. It's not like the photo was big news or something...shots of smoking buildings in Lebanon aren't exactly tricky to get these days.
Posted by: at August 8, 2006 12:58 AMSteve you are more intellectually honest than to stoop to this argument. Until you start acknowledging that when critics of the MSM are not referring to every single media outlet that is not a blog or conservative talk radio or every single person employed in the "MSM" you will have simply stifled a critical analysis because of a label you do not like.
Would you prefer to go through each one of these outlets one by one to demonstrate a bias so that you do not have to taint "the MSM" as a whole?
Don't hide behind the label MSM to avoid the very real problems with outlets such as Reuters, the AP, the NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, BBC and various assorted "Times" and "Posts" throughout the world.
Of course bias in these outlets are not proof that every single person or outlet in the so-called MSM is biased, nor does it purport to be.