IDC 4U1: Journal Entry Question #4
Reuters is an international, mainstream news provider. What does such an incident do for Reuters' reputation? What do you think about the fact that a blogger (an independent journalist) was the first to uncover the story? How does this change your view of mainstream media vs. independent media?
In 2006, a well-respected mainstream news provider presented the public with a photograph of bombing in Lebanon. This photo, taken by Adnan Hajj and published by Reuters, was obviously doctored. Evidently, Hajj – a photographer who had worked for Reuters for more than 10 years – used a photo editing program (presumably PhotoShop) to add more smoke to his image.
Reuters purportedly has a news-gathering policy which states that a group of production editors scrutinize their news services to ensure that quality standards are maintained. If that photo had really been scrutinized by a group of editors, I’d suggest that they get their eyes checked. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Hajj’s photograph was doctored. So it begs the question: with such obvious modifications made to the photo, how could Reuters have printed it?
The answer? Who knows! Whatever the reason, it hardly matters at this point because people seem to have forgotten about the entire ordeal. As is evident by the fact that Reuters is still thriving, the incident didn’t damage the company’s reputation very much, if at all.
The fact that a blogger was the first to uncover the truth, though, may have effected the public in some way. Is it possible that people will pay more attention to news that comes from independent sources? I’d like to say yes but, given that mainstream media is much more readily available, I doubt it.
Independent and mainstream media are so different that I don’t think they should even be compared to each other. Mainstream media, especially in the United States, constantly tries to feed its viewers a certain point of view – theirs. Generally, independent journalists don’t have to serve a higher power, so to speak, meaning that the information they present us with tends to have less of a one-sided bias. Well, that's as far as I know, in any case.
Reuters purportedly has a news-gathering policy which states that a group of production editors scrutinize their news services to ensure that quality standards are maintained. If that photo had really been scrutinized by a group of editors, I’d suggest that they get their eyes checked. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Hajj’s photograph was doctored. So it begs the question: with such obvious modifications made to the photo, how could Reuters have printed it?
The answer? Who knows! Whatever the reason, it hardly matters at this point because people seem to have forgotten about the entire ordeal. As is evident by the fact that Reuters is still thriving, the incident didn’t damage the company’s reputation very much, if at all.
The fact that a blogger was the first to uncover the truth, though, may have effected the public in some way. Is it possible that people will pay more attention to news that comes from independent sources? I’d like to say yes but, given that mainstream media is much more readily available, I doubt it.
Independent and mainstream media are so different that I don’t think they should even be compared to each other. Mainstream media, especially in the United States, constantly tries to feed its viewers a certain point of view – theirs. Generally, independent journalists don’t have to serve a higher power, so to speak, meaning that the information they present us with tends to have less of a one-sided bias. Well, that's as far as I know, in any case.
1 comment:
Great image. Is it yours?
Post a Comment