?

Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
Doctored photos 
6th-Aug-2006 05:12 pm
Dilbert
Do you remember the faked photos of the MSU conference hall in the UBF newsletter? Now Reuters was convicted of something similar. The best thing was the official statement of Reuters when they admitted it. No, they did not say "sorry, it was a faked image." The statement was: "Photo editing software was improperly used on this image". Brian K. could not have found a better formulation.
Comments 
7th-Aug-2006 09:28 pm (UTC)
Here is another faked image that was published by Reuters.
9th-Aug-2006 12:43 am (UTC) - Reuters Admits Mistakes
"News organization withdraws photograph of Israeli fighter jet, admits image was doctored, fires photographer. Reuters pledges 'tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict'"

UBF could learn from Reuters. Reuters admitted their mistakes, dismissed the offender, and pledged to increased their editing to prevent such mistakes in the future. Reuters still needs to apologize to their readers.

UBF could take great steps toward legitimacy of they would admit their abusive deceptive practices (openly, clearly, and publicly), dismiss the leading abusers, and make efforts to prevent such abuse and deception in the future.
9th-Aug-2006 07:01 am (UTC) - Re: Reuters Admits Mistakes
The difference between Reuters and UBF's fake are that Reuters did not publish the fakes on intent, but because they resorted to biased external photographers and did not thoroughly check what they got from them. (Both probably for reasons of economy). In UBF however, the fakes where made intentionally as ordered by the UBF boss. The UBF newsletter was not intended as a news source about what really happenes in UBF, but as a propaganda instrument.
9th-Aug-2006 11:49 pm (UTC) - Re: Reuters Admits Mistakes
The difference between Reuters and UBF's fake are that Reuters did not publish the fakes on intent, but because they resorted to biased external photographers and did not thoroughly check what they got from them.

Reuters intentions are debatable, but at this point I will give the benefit of the doubt that they do not have an agenda. There are plenty of newssources with baised agendas that impact their publications. Nevertheless, Reuters took responsibility for the mistakes when they were exposed.

So, are UBF leaders more comparable to the photographer?
This page was loaded Jun 19th 2018, 8:31 am GMT.