# Reuters rewrites a story. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038 "2003-07-31T02:41:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/1 "2003-07-31T02:41:00Z")
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 > **[Reuters’ Lynch article brings grief to reporter](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/24/20030724-113329-6315r/)** > > A West Virginia newspaper reporter yesterday accused Reuters, the British news service, of putting her byline on a story about the homecoming of Pfc. Jessica Lynch that she didn’t write. 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: > [@](#): > > **" 'Jessica Lynch, the wounded Army private whose ordeal in Iraq was hyped into a media fiction of U.S. heroism, was set for an emotional homecoming on Tuesday. … Media critics say the TV cameras will not show the return of an injured soldier so much as a reality-TV drama co-produced by the U.S. government propaganda and credulous reporters.'** And here is what she wrote: > [@](#): > > **’ELIZABETH [W. Va.] — In this small county seat with just 995 residents, the girl everyone calls Jessi is a true heroine — even if reports vary about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her ordeal in Iraq.’ "** She asked Reuters to remove her byline and they didn’t. Here’s how Reuters defends what they did: > [@](#): > > **Reuters defended its coverage yesterday after Ms. Wrenn’s account appeared on the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal Web site. > “We always reserve the right to temper a story with copy from both sides of an issue to better service our global readership,” Reuters said. "The advance story focused on the media controversy that has ensued since the rescue first took place. … We feel strongly that our coverage of Private Lynch’s return presents both sides of the issue fairly."** and > [@](#): > > **"The overnight advance story we carried was based on copy sent to us by Ms. Wrenn, who was working as a free-lancer for us at the time, and was supplemented by additional copy and editing from others Reuters staffers."** I’ve looked over the whole Reuters story: [http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3130273](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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/2 "2003-07-31T03:05:57Z")
So, Reuters did four things wrong: – 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 BTW Ms. Wrenn’s article explaining the situation is here [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003790](http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003790) ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/3 "2003-07-31T03:13:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*So, Reuters did four things wrong: > > – 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 > \*\* I heartily agree. This is absolutely deplorable. Reuters should be ashamed of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/4 "2003-07-31T04:21:38Z")
I await your evaluation of Fox news’ coverage of the war … ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/5 "2003-07-31T04:23:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AndrewT \* > \*\*I await your evaluation of Fox news’ coverage of the war … \*\* Quoo tokeway? No, I don’t think that’s it… ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/6 "2003-07-31T04:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*So, Reuters did four things wrong: > > – 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 > > BTW Ms. Wrenn’s article explaining the situation is here [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003790](http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003790) \*\* Made a mistake? It seems pretty clear to me that they did it on purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/7 "2003-07-31T04:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AndrewT \* > \*\*I await your evaluation of Fox news’ coverage of the war … \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/8 "2003-08-01T01:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **– Published an untrue. anti-American screed and called it news** 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. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/9 "2003-08-01T01:52:55Z")
\ Rewriting a story is the least of Reuter’s problems … **[Reuters accused of widespread racism in US class-action lawsuit](http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=429528)** \*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.\* \ ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/10 "2003-08-01T02:04:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Lynch’s story certainly has been “sexed up” in the media, from what I’ve heard. \*\* Proof please. ---
**Author:** ![boerjog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@boerjog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boerjog)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/11 "2003-08-01T04:47:23Z")
But, \*see title" Reuters are pieces of shit for rewriting it and putting the Original Authors name on it. Fox News/CNN same shit. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/12 "2003-08-01T05:24:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > \*\*Proof please. \*\* Isn’t this old news? Here’s a couple cites to get you started: > **[The truth about Jessica](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2)** > > Her Iraqi guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and doctors had already tried to free her. John Kampfner discovers the real story behind a modern American war myth. [http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/war/postwar/lynch.asp](http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/war/postwar/lynch.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/13 "2003-08-01T05:28:57Z")
What’s anti-American about it? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/14 "2003-08-01T06:02:29Z")
It doesn’t comply with **december’s** need for unquestioning acceptance of the Bush Administration, natch. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![w0rdsmith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a698b9/32.png) [@w0rdsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/w0rdsmith)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/15 "2003-08-01T06:57:14Z")
well we all should be aware the Reuters and AP are controlled by the international bankers… so they can do what they wish. big money baby. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/16 "2003-08-01T11:20:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*What’s anti-American about it? \*\* [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. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/17 "2003-08-01T11:35:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/18 "2003-08-01T11:47:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/19 "2003-08-01T18:16:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by december \* > \*\*[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. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038/20 "2003-08-02T03:25:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chula \* > \*\*Isn’t this old news? Here’s a couple cites to get you started: > > [The truth about Jessica | Iraq | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html) > [http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/war/postwar/lynch.asp](http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/war/postwar/lynch.asp) \*\* In an ironic twist, I’ll use a link to Reuters to refute the “hyped up” allegation > **[Breaking International News & Views](https://www.reuters.com/)** [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reuters-rewrites-a-story/192038.md?page=2)