Is Reuters credible?

[falxori 0]

In the recent flotilla incident threads there were a lot of discussions about which news source is "unbiased and credible".

Many refer to Reuters as one. is it?
look a the deliberate cropping of the pictures from the boat, conveniently removing knives from the hands of the "peace activists" and bloody Israeli soldiers.

Let's crop out what doesn't fit our story...

I feel I should thank the Turkish newspaper for posting the real pictures...

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Reuters is straight down the middle.

This is not to say that occasionally they haven't been lead astray by some reporter or photographer with an agenda, but as an organization there is no systemic bias to present the news in any way but as factually as possible. That's their business model. If they had an agenda, then they'd lose half of their clients and that's simply stupid.

That said, they are a service and people that subscribe to it and publish their work do, from time to time, also alter it to suit their own agendas.

In the article you linked to, it appears as if something is amiss, however, if you follow the link to the original article being complained about published on "Daylife" (whatever the fuck THAT is), you'll see it also has the original source photo that includes the knife.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/04GyfwE9WH76j?q=gaza

In this case I'd say it's 100% not Reuters' fault that "Daylife" cropped a Reuters' photo.

One last thing, not that I need to come to the defense of "Daylife" but it's also entirely possible they cropped the photo just to fit their web page format. This -may- have been done 100% automatically by software.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

[/url]http://www.daylife.com/photo/04GyfwE9WH76j?q=gaza[/url]

The weird bit here is that while the top photo is altered (and it's a bit creepy how they mopped up the blood on the railing, with an obvious color pattern here), the thumbnail photo below is the original one, and if you click on it, you get the proper full size image. Same for the other doctored one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the article you linked to, it appears as if something is amiss, however, if you follow the link to the original article being complained about published on "Daylife" (whatever the fuck THAT is), you'll see it also has the original source photo that includes the knife.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/04GyfwE9WH76j?q=gaza

In this case I'd say it's 100% not Reuter's fault that "Daylife" cropped a Reuters photo.

This isn't just a cropping - there is a manipulation of content as well - blood on the railing. But yeah, I can see the undoctored image as well.

[falxori 0]

The original was published by the Turkish news paper hurriyet and Reuters took it from them and forwarded it to the rest of the media.

it's not the first time Reuters is caught doing that.
here are a few more examples.
some can be described as "adding a dramatic angle" which is arguably acceptable in this case (posing a toy in front of a ruined building) and some are pure fiction (adding extra smoke to make Beirut look like its burning more)

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

it's interesting that Reuters "accidental" bias is always in the same direction...

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

I don't see any mopping up of blood. The section with the blood in it is simply cropped out the same way the knife is and again, that -may- have been done 100% automatically by software.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

it's not the first time Reuters is caught doing that.
here are a few more examples.
some can be described as "adding a dramatic angle" which is arguably acceptable in this case (posing a toy in front of a ruined building) and some are pure fiction (adding extra smoke to make Beirut look like its burning more)

The only thing that Reuters would be at fault in with those instances, would be not looking at the images submitted by PHOTOGRAPHERS closely enough.

Understand Reuters itself doesn't have a huge staff of photographers sitting around the globe snapping photos of spot news. That's not the way news has been done for decades. What they have are thousands upon thousands of people that don't actually work for them submitting freelance photographs hoping to get paid a few bucks when they see something happen. In fact, if you or I saw something happen and took a photograph of it, we could submit it to Reuters and hope to get paid for its publication. This is exactly the same way all news services work.

The organization doesn't have a bias, what they have is a huge volume of work flowing through them that other people have occasionally tried to game.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[falxori 0]

Quote

I don't see any mopping up of blood. The section with the blood in it is simply cropped out the same way the knife is and again, that -may- have been done 100% automatically by software.

Sorry, I don't buy that it is pure coincidence and chance and that an automatic software would crop out the knives and blood in two completely different pictures.

i know a thing or two about framing a photo and it would have made more sense to crop the other end of the picture as it adds nothing to it.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I don't see any mopping up of blood. The section with the blood in it is simply cropped out the same way the knife is and again, that -may- have been done 100% automatically by software.

Sorry, I don't buy that it is pure coincidence and chance and that an automatic software would crop out the knives and blood in two completely different pictures.

i know a thing or two about framing a photo and it would have made more sense to crop the other end of the picture as it adds nothing to it.

Fine, then blame "Daylife". If you want to blame Reuters specifically, then link the photos specifically from the Reuters web site.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't see any mopping up of blood. The section with the blood in it is simply cropped out the same way the knife is and again, that -may- have been done 100% automatically by software.

reviewing, I agree that it may just be cropping, and a color shift from the new jpeg save.

But I don't think it was coincidental. Just can't tell who actually performed the change. That Daylife has both forms suggests either they did it, or that Reuters submitted the original later.

The way to determine this would be to see if any other source posted these pictures in altered form.

[falxori 0]

I would, but they fixed it on their website.

You can't say that its an independent photographer who did it (which is also an issue if they can't trust their sources).
These photos were already published in Turkey uncropped, and they were then forwarded by Reuters cropped.

I would blame "Daylife" but these pictures appear elsewhere too. note, for example here, that the AP photo (2nd) show the knife but the one attributed to Reuters (the 4th) does not.

is it more likely that different newpapers and sites cropped it in the same way or that they got it like that from Reuters?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1284448/Are-photos-prove-Israeli-soldiers-attacked-activists-stormed-flotilla.html

and Note picture 1 and 4

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

is it more likely that different newpapers and sites cropped it in the same way or that they got it like that from Reuters?

If Reuters doesn't come out and blame Daylife for this violation, then you can fairly presume them to be the guilty party. That sort of alteration using Reuters' name would violate any reasonable terms of use and should be acted upon lest they suffer a reputational loss.

Obviously we can expect this to be a growing problem, and eventually Reuters, Iran, and others won't be so obvious in their photoshopping of smoke clouds or rocket launches. Might need to start requiring journalists to shoot in RAW mode so the original 'negative' will be available for validation.

[quade 4]

Did a quick bit of Photoshop work myself to see exactly what was and wasn't cropped out.

I overlaid the cropped image on top of the "original" image and put a faint glow on it so things would stand out better.

It's now apparent this wasn't something done by software, but I can still make a case for it being done without malice.

What's the story of the photo? The guy struggling while being subdued.

There is some wasted space in the photo with the railing taking up a significant portion. Although the cropped image on "Daylight" is 610x407 pixels (which seems a bit odd), it's actually a 9x6 aspect ratio, which, if nothing else, at least proves one thing comes out "even" in the crop. That is to say, somebody was just trying to make it fit some format they had in mind. There's no flippin' way that would have happened by a fluke accident.

Ok, so completely subjectively, if you're going to crop the original image so it fits a 9x6 aspect ratio, where to you begin?

The "V" shape formed by the orange life preserver points to the person being subdued. Seems fairly obvious that is such a strong visual it needs to be kept and emphasized in the final crop. So nailing the corners of the orange life preserver to the top corners of the crop seems to make a bit of sense, but how much do you do it? Well, let's lose as much of the rail as we can but still make it legible as a rail.

Would the inclusion of the knife add anything to the image?

Well, it would show the person was danger of being stabbed, but don't you really assume there's a gun somewhere out of frame anyway?

I dunno, to me this crop just doesn't seem malicious. Maybe not 100% thoughtful, but when I heard Israeli commandos boarded the boat the captured the people on it, I sort of assumed weapons were involved -- LOTS OF THEM -- and if any resistance was given, at least a bit of blood would have been spilled.

To me, the miracle of the photo is the guy still appears to be alive and struggling.

EDITED TO ADD
Here is what Reuters now has to say about the photos.
http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2010/06/07/cropped-photos/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

And by the placement of the nylon strap... probably about to be hung.

[falxori 0]

seriously?

Quote

What's the story of the photo? The guy struggling while being subdued.

No, a big part of the story is that he was attacked with knives and not by peaceful activist who didn't plan on fighting.

Quote

That is to say, somebody was just trying to make it fit some format they had in mind. There's no flippin' way that would have happened by a fluke accident.

There are more ways than one to crop a 9x6. its perfectly ok that they cropped it in that ratio to fit something. its very odd that the knife was cut out rather than, let's say,the really dark area of the knees on the left side

Quote

when I heard Israeli commandos boarded the boat the captured the people on it, I sort of assumed weapons were involved

were you expecting the "peace activists" to be armed as well?
That is a CRITICAL info presented in the picture and it is in no way trivial


don't you find it strange that there are 2 pictures in which the knife was cropped out?

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Would the inclusion of the knife add anything to the image?

If you're presenting photographs depicting a violent clash, which is about the only way to describe an encounter with 9 deaths, how can one justify removing the weapon from the image? Only makes sense if you want to portray one side as the sheep.

"The images in question were made available in Istanbul, and following normal editorial practice were prepared for dissemination which included cropping at the edges."

This is embarrassing BS. As your test overlay clearly shows, they did not crop the edges. The left edge was maintained. And in the other image, which is part of their explanation, they cropped substantially more from the bottom than they did the top. This could be justified from a photo art perspective as the knife in hand is a weird, badly angled image. But if this is photo journalism, the truth is the goal, not a clear presentation of a distortion.

IMO, their explanation/defense leaves no doubt any more. They did it.

[quade 4]

Quote

seriously?

Yes. You've offered one explanation and assume the worst motivations behind it.

I've offered plausible different point of view that -may- be completely innocent.

I realize that it's human nature to assume the worst. I'm suggesting that's not always the case. Sometimes people do things completely innocently and their actions are misinterpreted by others.

Has that never happened to you in your entire life?

For instance, have you never said something innocently on the internet and had it blown out of proportion and into a flame fest for what appears to be no reason whatsoever?

Again, you've come to this thread -assuming- Reuters has a political bias and did this intentionally. Whether or not that is true, one thing is certain, your assumption of their bias is in itself a bias.

You don't have to agree with my conclusion that this -could- have simply been a thoughtless act of cropping, that's fine by me, but it tells me that you're not even open to the possibility and that says a lot more about your situation than it does about mine or anyone else's.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Would the inclusion of the knife add anything to the image?

If you're presenting photographs depicting a violent clash, which is about the only way to describe an encounter with 9 deaths, how can one justify removing the weapon from the image? Only makes sense if you want to portray one side as the sheep.

How's that again? The guys standing over the Israeli commando are sheep? How is it even vaguely possible for anyone to draw that conclusion under any circumstance?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[falxori 0]

Yes, I assume it was deliberate.
based on the fact that they have done it before to "intensify" the message (which a fact based news organization shouldn't do at all) and because the exact two crops, omitting the knives were done in two different pictures.

As a news agency they shouldn't touch the picture, let alone crop out a key element of the scene. when they do it repeatedly, its hard to accept it as an honest mistake.
once? plausible. twice, maybe. there is a pattern here and ignoring it is being naive.

Quote

it tells me that you're not even open to the possibility

I'm open to any possibility. I just don't find it likely and logical based on the facts presented and the fact that its not a one time slip, and always in the same direction.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

I'm open to any possibility. I just don't find it likely and logical based on the facts presented and the fact that its not a one time slip, and always in the same direction.

In my experience, people rarely seem to notice things that match their world view as frequently as they notice things that appear to go against it.

Personal selective bias ends up being far more significant in terms of what they notice than the full range of items available to them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[falxori 0]

Quote

In my experience, people rarely seem to notice things that match their world view as frequently as they notice things that appear to go against it.

naturally, it's human nature.
That's why there are people with different views to point out things that don't add up.

If Reuters wants to position itself as an unbiased source of information it has to provide raw data without any manipulation or editing.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

If Reuters wants to position itself as an unbiased source of information it has to provide raw data without any manipulation or editing.

Well, there are at least of couple of problems with that.

The first is simply practical. A RAW photo might be upwards of 20 mb. While that might not seem insurmountable for a single photo, it's impractical for the thousands of submissions they'd receive on a daily basis, so at a very minimum, the photos are going to have some level of .jpg compression and reduced pixel count on the vast majority of them. Maybe some day that will change, but for now a lot of people are filing photos over less than optimal internet connections. I know photographers in LA that submit via tethered cell phones. A 20mb photo would simply be out of the question.

Another issue is cropping. It is highly unlikely that you'd ever get photographers around the world to ONLY submit uncropped photos. Sure, that may have been the case in the old days when people submitted 35mm slides, but one of the advantages of shooting digital is the photographer can be a little wide in the field and crop his images to make them better. This is almost a universal practice. Ask any of your local drop zone photographers if they send out anything to magazines at this point they haven't touched in some way.

Should the news service be allowed to crop a photo for the same purpose? Sure, as long as it doesn't intentionally misrepresent the subject of the photo. You believe that's the case in the photo in question. I don't.

The very last point is the subjective viewpoint of the photographer in the field to begin with.

Lemme ask you this; if the knife was the focus of the photo and not the man's struggle on the ground, then why is the knife only on the very margin of the photo to begin with? Is it possible that the photographer was, in fact, simply taking a photo of the man and the knife was only included because it found its own way into the photo as a fluke?

Ask yourself this; why didn't the photographer pan right a bit to capture the holder of the knife in the photo?

Answer; because the photo isn't about the knife or the man holding it.

This brings up one other question and something some news organizations have tossed around; demanding that entire "rolls" be submitted. Why? Because how else do you know if the photographer didn't pick the one photo out of hundreds that supported his personal bias? Of course, that's simply a ludicrous proposition as well. One has to assume that if a photographer can crop a photo and edit his rolls of submissions so that only positions favorable to his cause exist, he's certainly capable of not pulling the trigger on stuff that would show things in an unfavorable light to begin with.

In other words, at some point, you sort of have to trust the source. That goes from the original source photo, to news service, to distribution to hundreds of outlets across the globe.

Like I said earlier, sometimes people try to game the system by submitting photos that have significant changes that have been made to them, but that's on the person that submitted the photo. Yes, Reuters or any news service needs to look at them and use a bit of common sense in some cases, but I really don't see the photo in question here being cropped in such a way that significantly tells a different story.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You believe that's the case in the photo in question. I don't.

I'd love to see the Lee Harvey Oswald assassination without Jack Ruby's gun in it.

The IDF claims they were in mortal danger, hence they used their guns. The Hamas soldiers claim they were innocent. A picture that removes a knife skews the viewpoint to the latter party's story, even though it's bullshit. Propaganda.

Quote

Lemme ask you this; if the knife was the focus of the photo and not the man's struggle on the ground, then why is the knife only on the very margin of the photo to begin with? Is it possible that the photographer was, in fact, simply taking a photo of the man and the knife was only included because it found its own way into the photo as a fluke?

No, the knife is there because they were fighting. The cameraman didn't have the luxury of a calm environment where he could carefully frame. I've done a lot of spray and pray shooting in uncontrolled environments. Or maybe he intended to miss it deliberately, but got caught by the fact that many cameras (most SLRs) take a wider picture than seen in the viewfinder.

Quote

Ask yourself this; why didn't the photographer pan right a bit to capture the holder of the knife in the photo?

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the photographer intended to include it or not. It's there, and its relevant to the depiction and to go out of ones way to remove it says something. Had these shots been more equally cropped, that excuse might have flown, but there's a clear agenda here. Show the soldiers being subdued by heroic ship passengers using only their brawn and righteous energy. Hide anything that says that the IDF might have been justified in shooting at passengers.

Quote

In other words, at some point, you sort of have to trust the source. That goes from the original source photo, to news service, to distribution to hundreds of outlets across the globe.

Well, this isn't the first time Reuters has posted fraudulent images, so the problem is that they aren't a trustworthy source.

[quade 4]

Quote

Well, this isn't the first time Reuters has posted fraudulent images, so the problem is that they aren't a trustworthy source.

If that's your criteria, then what news organization on the entire planet would you ever possibly be able to consider "trustworthy"? Every news outlet on the planet has made errors. The question isn't whether or not they've made errors, it's whether or not those errors were made with malicious intent.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

As I said, I see fraud, not "errors."

Journalism has been tainted with bias for a long time, well before Hearst created the Spanish American War.

We all know Fox News is anything but, and we've seen others that pretend to be better but are just more subtle.

Refuse to acknowledge the fuckup here if you like. The "error" Reuters made was getting caught.