Personally, this is how I portrait your calendar, a beautifully face with a pimple on the nose. Frankly, what do you expect, if you had put on a picture of someone of the opposite group you would have the same response from the other religious group. If you want good reports, well portrait the good news…

History is written by the victors, and Israel clearly won the war that made them a nation. Israelis were not GIVEN the right to call arabs terrorists, they FOUGHT for it. Anyone who doesn’t understand this concept should refer to their history books and the American Revolution (or any “Revolution” for that matter)

The Rebels are cosidered terrorists until they win, and after winning, they can call themselves whatever they want.

In regards to the Calendar, what I am trying to put across is simply this. A picture is worth 1000 words, but sometimes its best to keep those words to yourself. As Freud himself once said, sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar, and this picture really doesn’t show bias either way.

Is it really the case that photos relating to violent incidents or death must be technically poor photos?? ie poor light, dull colours, uninspired composition, etc.

The bottom line is that a Calendar of Reuters photos relating to the events of 2006 will include photos that relate to events some people might find causes them “uneasiness”.

A solution is simple, buy yourself one of those ‘cute kitten’ calendars and don’t use news organisations calendars.

Artistically the photograph is very nice. However, I find myself agreeing with other people who are commenting that their uneasiness comes from the subject matter as presented by the caption.

In my case, however, I am personally very far removed from the conflict the represented by the picture and hold no particular opinion regarding it. I simply dont find the violent subject matter something I can stomach seeing glorified as a work of art. I certainly dont want to see it sitting on my desk for a whole month.

Thank you.

Just the kind of “utterely false and disingenuous” (the BBCs response to HonestReporting) charges that litter HonestReportings work.

2. Sorry, unlike yourself (as the above demonstrates) I don’t place words in people’s mouths.
Again the Reuters statement was “we sought to portray the theme Eyes on the World, …… concentrating on pictures with eyes.

“Concentrating on”, not ‘to the exclusion of all else’. Again this is a ridiculous quibble, that only confirms the place of the photo of the Palestinian in the calendar.

3. Negative in your opinion. But how is it “negative”? Entirely in your, and some others, subjective view. And even then it’s “negative” by connection only. There’s nothing negative about the subject of the photo itself. Those who are determined to be offended, find their offense by extension and inference – the caption refers to a party not actually depicted in the photo, whom you perceive to be the victims of the negativity.

4. I’ve never claimed that they did. What HR say is that this was an “error” that they requested Reuters to not repeat.

5. Another HR moment from you Alex. You quote me as saying “For those determined not to find offense”.
I actually wrote “For those not determined to find offense…’. Quite different.
Isn’t it interesting how you manage to make ‘errors’ that conveniently enable you to criticise me?

HonestReporting have a very similar affliction with regard to quotes and facts.

6. I feel very sorry for David Schlesinger, who must, out of professional courtesy, put up with these nonsensical complaints.

1. It was never suggested that replies should be thoughtful and intelligent; only that if you wanted to be thought of as a serious commentator it would most likely help your cause. Its certainly better than distorting what people have said and/or appealing to anti-Semitic loaded pejoratives such as nothing but an intolerant and hateful minority as you have previously attempted.

Incidentally, something is beginning to become apparent from these remarks– which Lobby do you happen to represent?

2. Unfortunately, you are still placing words in peoples mouths. Referring to posting #5, Reuters clearly states the images were literally supposed to have eyes in them (hence the name of the calendar: Eyes on the World) and major events that marked 2006. However, I repeat, it is very clear that very few of the pictures in the calendar have anything to do with eyes (certainly less than half) or with major events of 2006. Your argument, as such, changes absolutely nothing.

3. No one has argued that there arent other pictures in the calendar that could be seen as political in nature. However, none of themtogether with their captionscast a negative light on anyone. July is clearly the only exception. Indeed, this flies in the face of another claim by Reutersthat the calendar was supposed to have an overall positive theme. How do militants mourning at a funeral comply with this standard? You can try and distort and twist information as creatively as you want, but there is no absolutely getting around this fact.

4. Please indicate where Honest Reporting itself has actually demanded a recall of the calendar? They have never made such a demand. Again, please stop placing words in peoples mouths.

Furthermore, raising questions, voicing opinions, or even offering objections is not akin to censorship. I believe that people are intelligent enough to know the difference.

5. I think that your position is best summed up by your very own words in your previous posting: For those determined not to find offense In other words, regardless of whatever the facts will or will not show in the end, youve already started off with an apriori.

6. Although I honestly admit my suspicions about Reuters inclusion of the picture in the calendar, I also leave the possibility open that the organization may very well have meant no offense and all of this could be a misunderstanding. Therefore, I am grateful they have provided this blog site as a forum for dialog with them and look forward to what further responses they have to make on their own behalf.

The campaign by HonestReporting has relied on a number of false arguments. The first you mention is that the image is ‘political” where as others in the calendar are not. This is simply and demonstrably false. What is an image of George Bush at the G8 summut, but ‘political’?
Or the photo of Tibetans on a railway line? Partisan supporters of Chinese nationalism would probably see this photo as objectionably ‘political’ too. Claims of bias usually tell us a lot more about the claimant than about the object of their claim.

And secondly the ‘Theme’ argument is equally flawed. Reuters claimed that the theme was “Eyes on the World”, ‘on’ being the operative word – it’s not ‘eyes of the world’. To say that because some photos don’t show eyes is grounds to object to the calendar, is a pretty lame attempt to rationalize the objection. Even if this really was a valid argument, it would support the inclusion of the photo you object to, and question others.

I’d be equally disappointed if Reuters was to re-consider its calender because of calls from opponents of George Bush criticising the calendar for being political, or supporters of China’s claims to Tibet objecting to the photo of Tibetans.

My sympathies lie with the staff of Reuters who have to deal with this nonsense, which is little more than partisans of a particular cause expecting their strident position to be reflected by news organisations. And what really demonstrates the silliness of the campaign is that this isn’t even about a Reuters news product.