Last August, Reuters published and then withdrew two photographs from Lebanon that had been digitally altered.
At that time, we immediately terminated our relationship with the freelance photographer who took and altered the images and said wed share with the public the results of our internal investigations.
Experienced photo editors and other senior editorial staff went through thousands of images published during the Lebanon conflict. We are satisfied no other images were digitally altered.
We were not satisfied with the degree of oversight that we had that allowed these two images to slip through. We have tightened procedures, taken appropriate disciplinary action and appointed one of our most experienced editors to supervise photo operations in the Middle East.
Stephen Crisp started in this role this month; most recently he managed the transition to Reuters of our Action Images subsidiary. A British citizen, he has run pictures operations in Europe, Asia and globally while working for Reuters since 1985.
His predecessor in the Middle-East role was dismissed in the course of the investigation for his handling of the case.
We called together our senior photographers to strengthen our existing exacting guidelines on ethical issues in photography and wrote a new code of conduct for photographers, appended to this note.
We have restructured our pictures editing operation to ensure that senior editors deal with all potentially controversial photographs, and we have ensured that shift leaders are focusing solely on quality issues instead of doing editing themselves.
In addition, we have invested in additional training and supervision, particularly in the area of digital workflow, where we have engaged external experts.
Finally, we are working with industry leaders to see if there are technical means we can devise to better recognize possible fraud.
We are fully satisfied, as we conclude our extensive investigation, that it was unfortunate human error that led to the inadvertent publication of two rogue photographs. There was absolutely no intention on Reuters part to mislead the public.
Our swift, strong response, however, both in the days immediately following and in the months since, has strengthened our commitment to our trust principles and our reputation as a respected global news provider which acts with integrity and transparency. We have shown that when mistakes are made we take responsibility and make changes.
Our enhanced guidelines and procedures are among the best in the industry. And I believe we are firm in our dedication to reporting the world truthfully, objectively and without bias, as we have done for more than 150 years.
A brief guide to Reuters values and standards
David Schlesinger is Reuters Editor-in-Chief
Trackback
48 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
For those who are so strident in their criticism of Reuters, I have just one simple question whose simple answer will, I suspect, be quite revealing.
1)If you dont trust Reuters as a global news organization to give you the hard facts then who on earth do you turn to?
Fox News or Al-Jazeera perhaps? Rush Limbaugh or Gore Vidal maybe? The Pentagon or Xinhua? Mossad or U.N. arms inspectors?
I think that a straight answer to this question would give us some idea of precisely which axe it is these critics have to grind?
Having stumbled across this site, I am baffled by the venom and vitriol with which some people here attack an organization that, it seems to me, at least tries to do the right thing even if it does trip up from time to time.
In a world where language is increasingly spun beyond all recognition, we need to protect and encourage organizations such as Reuters more than ever before and, in doing so, get to the bottom of why some chose to attack them with a ferocity and guile that Goebbels or Stalin, Machiavelli or McCarthy would be proud of.
But then again, it must be very frustrating, not to say unusual, to be confronted by a news organization that does not have a an owner or major shareholder who can be lobbied or bought and whose journalists would presumably work elsewhere if they needed a cause to promote, wanted their names up in lights or hoped to get rich quick.
Yes Reuters screws up occasionally but lets put things in perspective for a moment. I presume that for every picture thats doctored or for every misplaced word thats printed, there are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, that are not? And at least, unlike some of the critics here, they admit it when they’re wrong and have the courage to nail their relatively neutral colours to the post!
- Posted by Gordon N.Re: Reuters’ “2007 Calendar”
- Posted by Jarrow L. RogovinDear Mr. Schlesinger: It’s not apparent that Reuters learned anything from its FAUXTOGRAPHY incident other than to watch out it doesn’t get cut publishing falsified photos. Othewise, using images in viciously bigoted and inappropriate manners bothers Reuters not at all. The problem is your organization’s vicious anti-Israel bias, not just an Arab photography stringer. Your stringer was not wrong: He knew exactly what you people wanted. Didn’t he? You all just got caught, that’s all.
I reviewed Reuters so-called “2007 calendar.” Eleven images, mostly of nature, some of human achievements, and all non-political — except for ONE: The one that slams Israel as some “rights violator.” (Perhaps you people need to be the object of Arab/Moslem terror yourselves. I don’t really wish it on anyone, but, like the pre-WW2 pacifists who needed the Gestapo to get the message through to them, I can’t imagine another way that you would then publish another “retraction,” this one regarding your view that Israel has no right to defend its citizens.
When such evident bias as Retuers’ is manifested, your reporting simply should not be trusted. When a “news” organization allows itself to show such a bigoted hand, it cannot be trusted on much else. After all, what other agenda is Reuters hiding? This is not a news-driven organization; it is agenda driven.
Most sadly, even after the Holocaust, so many of you Europeans have not given up your preternatural resentment of Jews. You people have it so bad, you can’t even print a calendar straight, can you? WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT CALENDAR?! IT WAS NOT JUST A STRINGER OR A FLUNKY THAT APPROVED IT AND YOU KNOW IT. HOW HIGH DID APPROVAL OF THIS PIECE OF BIGOTRY GO AND WHO DID IT? As long as you are dumping your “news” on the public, the public needs to know who is doing what at Reuteres, and who is responsible in your very untrustworthy organization.
Jarrow L. Rogovin
Los Angeles
I was happy (and maybe a little naive?) to hear of your efforts to improve accuracy of your mid-east photography and reporting. I wish you good luck in obtaining the intended results. A correctly informed citizenry is a prerequisite to the success of democracy, both at home and abroad, and you have a major role to play.
- Posted by David KorensteinTo some respect, Reuters has done a real service — it has shown the world that “news” (including photographic images) are really just products and are no more valid, objective and truthful than television commericals or magazine ads hawking toothpaste, mascara or frozen dinners. Reuters has not only lost credibility for itself but it has made a statement regarding the validity of all news stories and pictures from all agencies: “What we show you reflects the political opinion we would like to you have based upon our own predjudices and persuasions. It has nothing to do with truth, it has everything to do with politics and in influencing world opinion to suit ourselves.”
Thanks for the education, Reuters.
- Posted by EllenLets see:
-Adnan Hajj photo scandle : August 5, 2006
-Reuters fires a top photo editor for the Middle East: January 18, 2007.
Thats a fast response?
Furthermore: only one editor? That seems rather odd. I sincerely hope that this wasnt just the usual sacrificial lamb as so often happens in these cases.
Youll have to forgive my skepticism. You see, your organization allowed a lie to be published. A lie that was easily be identified by amateur bloggers.
You understand that, in spite of your new policies, your organization is presently under more scrutiny than it has ever been. Adnan Hajj is not the one to blame for this.
- Posted by JonReuters has been a news source that I never questioned upon hearing news of any event worldwide. I hope that will never change.
- Posted by Patricia MillerThank you.
Patricia Miller
Several people commenting on this posting seem to have the impression that Reuters delayed acting on this case, or tried to deny there was an issue.
In fact, we investigated every allegation quickly, seriously and with an open mind.
We terminated our relationship with the photographer and retracted the first of the photographs in question within 15 hours of bloggers alerting us to issues with it. We made a public statement immediately. We took further strong action over the next 24 hours after establishing that there were questions about whether a second photo had been altered.
David Schlesinger
- Posted by David SchlesingerThis is in reference to Mr. Sayers comment (#39):
1. Hezbollahthe focus of the conflicthas unequivocally vowed to push the Jews (not Israel) into the sea. Theyve made it expressly clear that theyre not interested in a jaw-jaw, as you so quaintly put it.
2. If Lebanon would have been responsible enough to address the problem with Hezbollah then there would have been no need for Israel to stop the rocket attacks on her citizenry.
3. The photographs are important. Jews are extremely sensitive with regard to propaganda and distortion about them. They have a right to be. Centuries of such libels led to endless pogroms and murder. It fueled the holocaust. Its fueling the present conflict.
If, in this context, you fail to see the significance of the distorted photographs then with where does this place you historically? With whom do you stand?
4. The Palestinians are not half of Israels population. They arent Israeli citizens. Nor do they even posses any such aspirations. The Palestinian Authority is an independent entity working to establish its own state.
5. Lastly, and this, as opposed to my other comments, is meant to be personal: by the soul of my dead brother, who was murdered during one of those missile attacks on Israel by Hezbollahyoure sarcasm and vitriol are not at all appreciate. SHALOM yourself.
- Posted by Martin