Here’s an enlightening look behind the curtain over at Reuters’ Middle-East department.

When he was called from holiday to the Lebanon war he learned that several stringers on the front line in the south did not have Reuters cameras. Two office co…

Snapped Shot offers a fascinating glimpse behind the scenes in the Reuters photography department during the Lebanon War, courtesy of a post at Lightstalkers. (h/t Hot Air)……

Did you know that it is Reuters POLICY to not call terrorists as terrorists in their articles. They are supposed to be called “insurgents,” or “freedom fighters,” but never terrorists. They justify it by saying that one man’s terrorists is another man just blowing up innocent men, women and CHILDREN for freedom.

On one hand, we have numerous bloggers with technical knowledge of digital imagery and digital imagery software who independently found repeated evidences of modified images. The captions and the images uniformly put the Israelis in the worst possible light in each of the specific circumstances.

On the other hand, we have several somewhat contradictory versions of Reuters’ mea-sorta-but-not-really-culpa.

Now we have this story which tends to augment the conclusions of those seeing Reuters as being institutionally responsible for what amounts to severely biased anti-Israel propaganda.

As I see it, what we can say with virtual certainty is this. Reuters has been less than honest and less than responsible in taking the responsibility for it’s flawed reporting and it’s apparently severely flawed management oversight. That translates into, at best, a news organization with very flawed credibility and at worst, a news organization that allowed itself to degenerate into a propaganda mouthpiece for an Islamofascist terrorist organization.

That Reuters has chosen to attempt to ignore further repercussions and attempt to simply move on, as has it’s enabling clients in the MSM. In other words, “ignore it and it’ll blow over and we can go back to business (as usual?)”

doesn’t it mean Reuters’s claim about Hajj having “directly filed” his photos to the newswire is shinola?

Perhaps, it means that Reuter’s claim that it was Hajj who doctored the photographs is shinola.

Is it surprising two tampered pictures got through? He accepts responsibility for not spotting them, but could he not have expected backup from the Singapore photo desk?

I wonder if this might infer that there were tampered pictures that he didspot, that did not get through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE7KCtYaTig

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Well, actually, no. That’s not always true. C’mon AP, have we not learned the lesson here.