The Washington Times jumped on the Reuters bashing bandwagon this morning with an editorial criticizing the news agency for not noticing the obvious retouching of an image this week from Lebanon.
The editorial claims:
The important point here is that Mr. Hajj was doctoring his work for propaganda purposes. Part of Hezbollah's strategy is to outlast Israel until world opinion says the conflict has gone on long enough and it's time to quit with no punishment of the terrorists. As the terrorists in Iraq have figured out, one way to do that is by encouraging or playing up the inevitable civilian casualties. Hezbollah militants hide in Lebanese homes, while Hezbollah sympathizers in the media document the "disproportionate" Israeli military response to rockets fired from "peaceful" battery sites.
If you believe what The Washington Times is saying here, it looks like Reuters not only hired a photographer with poor photoshop skills, but that he is also Hezbollah sympathizer.
The Times is using it's soapbox to make assertions and draw feable conclusions without any real evidence to support its claim. That's what opinions are, substantiated and biased accounts of some event, person, or thing.
According to Editor & Publisher, Gary Hershorn, a picture editor for Reuters, believes that the freelancer Adnan Hajj did not manipulate the images for political purposes, but to only "make them better."
This is not the first time Hershorn has had to deal with questions of media bias. In September 2005, Mr. Hershorn edited an image of President Bush writing a note during a UN meeting. By enlarging the image, the editor was scrunitized for publicizing a very human moment in the life of a very public figure. With Hershorn's edit the content of the note became clear:
"I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible."
Although it would be difficult to say that Hershorn's focus on bringing the president's message into the public sphere, the Lebanonese issue doesn't seem to be making life any easier for the agency, especially in a world that already distrusts the media to a great extent.
Hershorn's defense of Hajj [the photographer in question] seems to steal a page out of the defensive public relations strategy book -- deflect, denounce, and deny.
Not only had Hajj manipulated the smoke coming from burning buildings in Beruit, but blogger Rusty Shackleford discovered the photog added a few extra flares fired from an Israel jet as well. Furthermore, conservative critics have accused Hajj and others of playing along with a Hezbollah propaganda scheme by staging the dramatic rescue of children in Beruit a last week.
To its credit Reuters is trying to respond to all the pressure it has been getting from its critics with what ever good graces it can muster. Editing policies have been tightened, the photographer fired, and all his pictures removed from circulation. Reuter's public apology and its attempts to not repeat the mistakes of the past week are commendable. In the end, transparency is the best defense against distrust and Reuters appears to be taking the initiative in this case.
At the same time, concerns over the ease in which the media can be manipulated by Hezbollah, Israel, or any other interest holder in the Middle East must remain in the public spotlight.