The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Reuters Rooters

8.14.06 @ 12:01AM

SEEING IS DISTORTING
Re: Philip Klein's Fog of Reuters:

If Reuters has to compromise its standards for news integrity to operate in some countries, shouldn't that news come with a label, saying that they can't vouch for the impartialness of the story?

As a news organization that supposedly prides itself on objective reporting, compromises made to gain access should be put disclosed up front so that the reading public can judge for itself whether or not a story is really worth reading.
-- Frank Mauran

Philip Klein assembles the mosaic and then misses the picture -- institutional bias. He essentially explains WHY Reuters is a propagandist for Islamic terrorism and then says it is all inadvertence. Just ask yourself, given Klein's description of the workings of Reuters, how likely is it that an "accidental" picture showing MORE damage INSIDE Israel from a missile attack than actually occurred would have gotten published by Reuters? Right. Zero.
-- Greg Richards

I appreciate Philip's background information on how errors, misjudgments of fact, and bias appear everyday at Reuters. He says they are rushed and deadlines for mega amounts of data to be processed cause the errors.

Seems to me that Ford, Harley Davidson and GM were all in the same boat. When people stopped buying their inferior products they, and only then, fixed the problem.

There is a way to get the news right, but obviously Reuters doesn't care. We, as consumers, have a duty to not buy inferior goods. Show us how we can boycott this sham. Surly, someone out there can organize a campaign to get their attention.
-- Joe O'Mara
Farmington, New York

Mr. Klein's article is exhibit one as to why one can NOT expect objectivity and neutrality from reporters when they are discussing the news media itself. Mr. Klein acknowledges and reinforces the anti-Israel bias at the organization, and yet he insists on calling it a "news" organization instead of an opinion organization. A "news" organization would tell me who, what, when, and how about any happening, and tell it to me straight with no bias at all -- either way. Why the event happened is for the editorial pages.

Acknowledging that, if you report the truth about happenings in a country would subject you to danger and get you kicked out, simply argues for you to leave the country or to admit, up front, that you are not reporting "news." You can not have it both ways, Mr. Klein. You either honestly and truthfully report the news in an unbiased manner, or you stop calling yourself a news organization, period. Quick, Mr. Klein, circle the wagons, the Indians have found out that you are here.
-- Ken Shreve, behind enemy lines
New Hampshire

I can respect the safety and security needs of Reuter's employees in the dangerous parts of the world. But to call them reporters or journalists takes an incredible leap of faith. If they are afraid to report the truth, then they are the willing pawns of the despots and tyrants in power, passing along the official press releases of the propaganda ministries. Reporting this garbage does a disservice to its readers and subscribers. No news is better than half-truths and outright lies. I view with great skepticism anything reported in today's MSM who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Is it just me or does this resemble the CNN "reporters" in Baghdad suppressing real news in order to maintain access to those in power?
-- Bob Staggs
Goshen, Kentucky

"In my view, the culprit was a phenomenon I call the Fog of Reuters."

This does not ring true, as all such "errors" have gone against Israel.
-- B. Wood

If it is impossible to be an international news organization without bowing down to thugs and dictators in order to spare the lives of reporters, then a disclaimer needs to be put as the first paragraph of every story and the caption of each picture filed from anywhere that thugs rule. Since I doubt that any news organization would do this by themselves, it would also put their reporters at risk if the organization themselves ordered it, then perhaps Congress needs to address this issue. Call it the "Truth in Reporting" law or some such wonderful sounding thing as politicians are wont to do. We require disclaimers on all kinds of products. If you are going to present twaddle as fact at least be required to say the facts contained here in may be twaddle. Do I really want a law passed? No I don't, but if some means of keeping the major news reporting organizations credible doesn't happen soon they are going to die. Credibility is their only product. Once it is gone it won't come back and they are close to losing it now. We all need a truthful, credible press. They are an intelligence agency for "the people" as opposed to the CIA which an intelligence agency for the government. To stay a free people we need good well sourced intelligence. Bad sources need disclaimers so we can weigh their credibility for ourselves. If some way can't be found for the major news organizations to do this themselves then it will be left to the blogosphere to tear apart every badly sourced story, a "Team B" approach for the "Peoples Intelligence Agency."
-- Geoff Bowden
Battle Creek, Michigan

I wish to thank Philip Klein for clearing up my misconceptions concerning Reuters News Service. Here I had thought that they showed at least an anti-Israeli bias in their coverage of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. According to him, though, they only have a teeny little anti-Israeli bias which is in perfect step with the anti-Israeli bias of Europe in general.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Health Care, Economics, Business, Islam, Books, Law, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, European Union, NATO, Africa, Conservatism, Immigration