Reader reaction to Reuters news
The photo used in the article regarding Eritrea needing Humanitarian help was in fact taken in Somalia.
I find this photo very offensive and so do my Eritrean friends. Please replace the photo used and in future use photos taken in Eritrea to represent Eritreans.
I am writing to complain the use of Somali’s malnourished child in your report regarding UNICEF’s campaign to raise $24.8 million fund for Eritrea.
Regardless whether or not UNICEF needs such fund for Eritrea, I believe that the use of Somali malnourished child in your report is a misrepresentation of Eritrea and part of a campaign to tarnish Eritrea’s image. Indeed, the use of the photo is unacceptable, unprofessional and it is something that one should not expect from news outlets such as Reuters.
The picture of the child appended to the report on Eritrea is very offensive.
The picture is taken in Somalia and not Eritrea. I find it inappropriate to use such pictures.
I kindly request that the picture is removed.
Why do you use the image of a malnutritioned child taken in a foreign country to corroborate the allegation of hunger in Eritrea?
D. H. G.
In your news story titled “UNICEF wants $24.8 million for Eritrean fund” you included an image of a malnourished child. The image happens to be that of a Somali child, according to your own website.
Given the news about Eritrea talks about “malnourishment” in Eritrea, don’t you think it is misleading to include the sad image of Somali child in the news item pertaining to Eritrea?
Isn’t it racist to include the image from Somalia in a news item on Eritrea as it implies that all such images fit all Africans?
Doesn’t this compromise the objectivity of the story you are trying to tell about Eritrea?
It is alarming to see the image being presented as if it were related to the news on Eritrea. But to later learn this actually is not from Eritrea is quite infuriating!
This photo, which appeared in the African edition of reuters.com, was not an appropriate choice to illustrate this story, and a number of readers commented. We have removed the photo: GBU Editor