I heard this on the news yesterday, and even though this story is a few days old, I still feel like I need to comment on it. I found a link to the story
Which is about how, after writing a story about the homecoming of Jessica Lynch, Reuters asked her if they could use her byline, and then ran a story that she never wrote, only using one quote from her. While her article was praising Jessica, the Reuters article was a complete 180
Here’s some of what Reuters story:
And here is what she wrote:
She asked Reuters to remove her byline and they didn’t.
Here’s how Reuters defends what they did:
and
I’ve looked over the whole Reuters story: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3130273
And both sides are not covered fairly. The whole article is basically nothing but America bashing and anti war propaganda.
And Reuters didn’t “Supplement” her story. When you publish somebody’s story, and it only contains one of their quotes, and the rest was written by other people, that’s not supplementing, that’s rewriting it.
And so, just like there are plenty of you who eye stories from NewsMax.com with suspicion and skepticism, so I think that I might have to have the same suspicion and skepticism when it comes to stories from Reuters.
– Published an untrue. anti-American screed and called it news
– Attributed it wrongly to this reporter, Ms Wrenn
– Didn’t remove Ms. Wrenn’s byline, when she asked them to
– Made a bullship explanation, instead of just admitting that they made a mistake
If I hear about them taking somebody’s story, rewriting it to give it a meaning that’s 180 degrees different from what the author intended, and then attributing the story to that author, I’ll start a thread.
Doesn’t necessarily seem untrue or anti-American to me, though that’s no excuse for attributing the article to someone who wants nothing to do with it. Lynch’s story certainly has been “sexed up” in the media, from what I’ve heard.
Rewriting a story is the least of Reuter’s problems …
Reuters accused of widespread racism in US class-action lawsuit
*The Reuters news group and one of its US subsidiaries is being sued for racial discrimination over allegations that a “white, public school attitude” tolerated and encouraged a racist environment in which black employees were abused and persecuted.
The class action announced yesterday alleges that black employees at Radianz a US-based internet services subsidiary of Reuters were forced to work in “an outrageous, patently offensive environment”. One black employee was repeatedly referred to as “my nigger” by a white supervisor and was sent racially offensive emails, the action alleges.*
</hijack>
[ul][li]Unsupported allegation that US media “hyped [the story] into a media fiction” []Accusation of US Government propaganda: “drama co-produced by U.S. government propaganda and credulous reporters.”[]Accusation that US reporters are credulous[]Decision to include the quote, “It no longer matters in America whether something is true or false. The population has been conditioned to accept anything: sentimental stories, lies, atomic bomb threats…” This quote implies Americans are gullible boobs.[]Use of the quote, “The failure here was that the news media got to thinking the government could be trusted to reflect reality.” Implies that media should assumed that the government cannot be trusted.This way of again artificially forcing the allegation of propaganda into the article: “A spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Florida had no comment when asked about assertions that the heroism tale was government propaganda.” What in the world could the spokesman possibly say to such a question? If he denied it, then Reuters’s headline would focus on his denial of GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA. [/ul]In short, the article continually focuses on US goivernment lying and propaganda, although there is no evidence that anyone in Government ever lied. [/li]
It is true that a number of early media reports had substantial inaccuracies, but that’s not unusual in war time. Furthermore, those mistakes didn’t come from government reports. At that point in time, the government wasn’t saying anything.
The accusations were made some time ago, but in truth have no evidence to back them up, and rely on, essentially, unfounded statements. Most prominent include the idea that the US forces “knew” there were no enemies in the area (the area being a seemingly abandoned building, like the US has secret superheroes able to peer into buildings), and that the troops sent in were somehow “overarmed” (duh, US forces always try to outgun the enemy) and fired blanks (no evidence at all).
Honestly, if any of that were the case, the soldiers in questions probably would have talked. You oculd make a fortune.
While I disagree with the “America bashing and anti war propaganda” accusation, I feel that changing the original story and maintaining the byline is highly unethical, and not something I’d expect from Reuters.
None of that is anti-American is far as I can see. bashing the government is not the same as bashing the country. I think the government did exaggerate the story and stage the “rescue” for propaganda purposes. There’s nothing anti-American about that opinion, it’s just anti-Bush. Bush != America.
