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!

Thanks for the education, Reuters.

-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.

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

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.