Thats cause we’re clubbing baby seals , not babies.
Declan
Wow, that’s a lot of questions at once. 
Among other things, yes, this thread is a way to restore my reputation. In the previous one, some posters openly questioned my integrity, implying that the picture was a fake, and the thread was locked before I had any chance to respond. This picture is not a fake, here’s a direct link to it straight from the publishing newspaper.
Now, on to the real matter: this world map is heavily anti-American. It’s not of an uncertain provenance either (unless you consider Reuteurs as an obscure news provider).
Is it more because of anti-american agents in Amnesty International or because of anti-american agents in Reuteurs? I leave it to the debate. My guess is indeed that there’s shoddy journalism.
Now, if you want a topic to discuss, here’s one: since Amesty International could not be seen as anti-american, as testified by many posters here, shouldn’t they react to published news depicting them as such?
There’s the Reuters logo in the bottom right corner, both on the printed version and the electronic version of the article. I admit, the logo is cropped on the direct link picture due to random framing, but you can still see it if you navigate to the 5th june edition of the newspaper, page 13.
Quite possibly.
It is still of an uncertain provenance to everyone but you. Help us out here. I have been unable to navigate to the image on the website - this is not your fault; it’s a sucky interface - but even if I were to be able to, there’s still no proof that the image was actually made by Reuters and not inadvertantly derived from a dubious source - or faked - by Le Matin Bleu. A logo in the corner of an obscure newspaper site is not proof.
Find the original on the Reuters site (or in some other verifiable Reuters source). Then the debate can commence.
Mmmh, I find you exceedingly cautious on the subject. You know, I had the printed newspaper in hands, and you can see (if you play a bit with the website) that there’s a Reuters graphic around page 13 every day. Today, it’s about the issues of high-altitude soccer games…
If you dare browsing to the right day and page, you’ll see the Reuters logo. Can’t help you more.
Now, I can’t find the graphic (nor any other graphic in fact) straight from Reuters site. It’s not very surprising: they won’t show their graphic online for free since they **sell ** them to newspapers worldwide.
It’s a bit easy to discard the whole thing this way, but if it makes you feel better, don’t worry. So, we can conclude: Yeah, it’s probably an obscure anti-american mastermind working at Le Matin Bleu. (/sarcasm)
BTW, Le Matin Bleu is not “an obscure newspaper” just because you don’t have it delivered to your door. It’s the largest daily newspaper of the western area of Switzerland.
I guess I’m out, then.
Look at it from my point of view: anonymous blogger on message board rants at well-known organisation based on biased/badly constructed graphic allegedly from well-known news source reproduced in obscure foreign-language newspaper (100,000 ain’t big, and it’s a freebie - come on - how small must its competitors be?!?).
How many points here need verification before we can even begin? Since you’re not prepared to put the effort into proving the most salient one of them, I’m afraid your point is a trifle difficult to debate.
It’s also a lot easier this way. We agree on a point: you’re off.
I did not mean to impugn your reputation or that of Le Martin Bleu and I’m sorry you felt that way.
However, I spent some time using the text reports from AI allocating icons to the about eight or nine countries highlighted on the map, and I could justify allocating so many more icons for each country that I got pretty much pissed off with the whole exercise and asked for the thread to be locked.
As far as I could judge, if this map was produced by Reuters then the picture it paints is not supported by the AI text based reports. Rather than blame Reuters management I suspect it was more likely done in an underhand fashion by some Reuters employee. After all, how many Reuters editors have an hour or so to spare to check everything.
Well Aquila Be, thank you for this kind reply.
If the bias comes from a Reuters employee, I wonder what AI should do, because for sure its reputation is hurt by such a bad world map.
Sorry, that should have been Matin Bleu. Can’t we have a 10 minute edit window?
Rectification would be a matter for both AI and Reuters management to consider if they receive a report.
If you rely on Reuters for some of your news items perhaps you should raise it with them?
We’ll all get along better, (and post here longer), if we observe the rules about not issuing personal insults to other posters in the Forum.
[ /Moderating ]
I suppose that AI might be prompted to make an issue of the matter if
- they were a very large and well-funded corporation with a lot of lawyers on staff looking for work instead of a widely, but thinly, distributed organization composed mostly of volunteers;
- they had the resources to track down every article ever published using their name (although I suppose even AI can afford the Lexis/Nexis services);and
- the information presented was best described as false rather than selected.
(If each icon represents some category that actually appears in the report, but it simply fails to include some other categories (such as the population displacements attributed to China and Russia), then the map would be sufficiently “accurate” for a limited presentation so as to make an effort to demand a retraction an expensive waste of time. (And, of course, we do not know that AI has not requested a retraction, only that such retraction has not yet been seen by the tiny number of observers who might have encountered it.))
Regarding Reuters: they gather and disseminate news. It is entirely possible that the article was a presentation of a commentary on the AI report that did not originate with Reuters, the provenance of which is now obscure.
Since you speak French, might you contact the paper and ask about the map and its provenance?
tomndebb, how do you construe “you’re off” as an insult in this instance. True, "you’re off, can be used as a truncated “you’re off your rocker”, i.e., nuts, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. I took it as “okay, you’re off the discussion”, as the two of them appeared to be at an impasse.
I’ll contact the newspaper. Good idea.
Oddly enough, “donnybrook” and “bellwether” were two words I often saw in print but could never remember the meanings of, though now I’ve got them straight.
Kotrin, as a french-speaking Swiss, you can also ask the Amnesty International office in Lausanne if they have seen the article.
http://www.amnesty.ch/fr/contact
Sorry I missed the earlier thread, I am a French-speaking Swiss and also an Amnesty International member! I agree that the chart does not seem like something produced by A.I., more like someone creating a chart based on the A.I. yearly report ( http://thereport.amnesty.org/fra/Homepage )