I see the initial headline is problematic, but I also believe it would have been factual if they’d just put quotation marks around “Hamas camera”, as it is an article reporting on the Israeli quote (at least initially). There are a bunch of other articles on this topic citing other sides and an obituary for the cameraman, so I’m still not convinced Reuters as a whole is compromised.
But, yeah, it’s super weird to completely re-write an article instead of just publishing a new one. And I also don’t know about their history with this type of thing, as you mentioned.
Interesting links and context. They have previously been accused of bias for not using the word “terrorist”, so I’m surprised they have even used the word “genocide” at all frankly.
It’s also interesting to read in their wiki controversies section that they have been accused of bias against Israel previously.
I’m on the fence. I’m of the belief that true journalism should be simple reporting on facts, which is what I see. Refusing to condemn a side, or to condemn actions is an odd thing to call bias. Surely declaring anything like that, however righteous it may be, is bias itself.
Another major lie spread by Reuters for which Reuters is being sued is when they bought a video from a Dutch journalist showing Maccabi supporters beating up a Dutch person. Reuters put in the subtitle that it was Dutch people beating up a Maccabi supporter to spread the “pogrom” narrative.
Reuters was contacted and made aware of this fact but refused to change their knowingly false headline because they had a Zionist narrative which they were ordered to spread. Reuters then once again retroactively “corrected” themselves very long time after the damage was done.
This stuff has happened so many times already. It is not an accident. Reuters does this on purpose. It usually tells the truth, but when the boss calls with a false narrative they will directly abandon all journalistic integrity and spread that propaganda.
I see the initial headline is problematic, but I also believe it would have been factual if they’d just put quotation marks around “Hamas camera”, as it is an article reporting on the Israeli quote (at least initially). There are a bunch of other articles on this topic citing other sides and an obituary for the cameraman, so I’m still not convinced Reuters as a whole is compromised.
But, yeah, it’s super weird to completely re-write an article instead of just publishing a new one. And I also don’t know about their history with this type of thing, as you mentioned.
Reuters journalists are literally quitting because the paper is so extremely biased pro-Israel
https://lemmy.ml/post/35237236
Multiple Reuters employees accuse their employer of being heavily biased in favor of Israel https://www.declassifieduk.org/reuters-journalists-accuse-newswire-of-pro-israel-bias/
And lastly Reuters claimed to have seen footage of rapes on October 7, which the UN has confirmed does not exist
Interesting links and context. They have previously been accused of bias for not using the word “terrorist”, so I’m surprised they have even used the word “genocide” at all frankly.
It’s also interesting to read in their wiki controversies section that they have been accused of bias against Israel previously.
I’m on the fence. I’m of the belief that true journalism should be simple reporting on facts, which is what I see. Refusing to condemn a side, or to condemn actions is an odd thing to call bias. Surely declaring anything like that, however righteous it may be, is bias itself.
Another major lie spread by Reuters for which Reuters is being sued is when they bought a video from a Dutch journalist showing Maccabi supporters beating up a Dutch person. Reuters put in the subtitle that it was Dutch people beating up a Maccabi supporter to spread the “pogrom” narrative.
Reuters was contacted and made aware of this fact but refused to change their knowingly false headline because they had a Zionist narrative which they were ordered to spread. Reuters then once again retroactively “corrected” themselves very long time after the damage was done.
This stuff has happened so many times already. It is not an accident. Reuters does this on purpose. It usually tells the truth, but when the boss calls with a false narrative they will directly abandon all journalistic integrity and spread that propaganda.