One Year Analysis: Reuters 2007 "Pictures of the Month"

This is a good article but I believe it would have had greater impact if you had used images,pictures representing the 10% sympathetic to Israel rather than simply reprinting the Palestinians' photos. Why perpetuate /fortify their staged propaganda?

Posted by: bernard Baum at Mar 6, 2008 4:57:53 PM

I was born in Egypt. I know how and witnessed a leader inflame his people with hate and feed them lies and false
hope. Half a century later, these leaders now have the help of cameras and the internet to spread their lies.
I am not surprised but saddened by what they have done to the people they claimed to love.

Posted by: Galiah at Mar 6, 2008 5:11:49 PM

FYI:The Thomson Corporation, Toronto, Canada is about to acquire Reuters Group PLC. at a Shareholders meeting on March 26, 2008, at 100:00am at Roy Thomson Hall, 60 Simcoe Street, Toronto ON, Canada. David Thomson is Chairman...Suite 2706, Toronto-Dominion Bank tower, POBox 24, Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, Ontario M5K 1A1; Tel. (416) 360-8700
You might call upon the Thomson Corporation to call upon Reuters to exercise balance and fairness in its reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
All the best
Simon Gulden
Markham ON (on top of Toronto)
Canada
simongulden@rogers.com

Posted by: Simon Gulden at Mar 6, 2008 5:38:05 PM

While I agree with most of your analysis, one comment regarding this statement: "In 2007, conflicts in Darfur, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and a multitude of other locations produced thousands more casualties in comparison to Palestinians or Israelis. Yet, not one funeral from those conflicts "made it" into any Reuters "Pictures of the Month" packages."
I think some of this is the result of Westerners not caring/being interested(or possibly tending toward more racism against Africans and Asians), but being interested in the Middle East conflict. After all, most Western governments don't say much or seem to care about Dafar at all, and we only "care" about Afghanistan because we don't like the Taliban or Al Qayda, otherwise, we probably would never hear about the country or its people. And Sri Lanka -- we almost never hear anything about that. Nevertheless, the press often gives the impression that the Middle East conflict is the ONLY one that matters around the world and does seem to use photos that are often, as Honest Reporting has pointed out, not even relevant to the article (e.g., using a picture of a Palestinian funeral when the article is about the status of peace negotiations.

Posted by: amy at Mar 6, 2008 5:38:50 PM

Your one year analyses such as the Reuters picturs of the month are the best things you do. They provide hard and incontrovertable evidence of media bias. The six to one ratio of pro-palestinian to pro-israel pictures is so dispositive that even a liberal would be hard pressed to argue. These data need to be circulated to every Senator, Congressman and Government media and licensing employee in the US. Information is Power in today's world.

Posted by: Joel Dubow at Mar 6, 2008 5:43:26 PM

The Palestinians stage lots of photo ops, and have photographers who turn out these pictures as an industry.
The same is not true on the Israeli side, or in the other conflicts mentioned in your article.

With thousands of high quality professionally staged pictures of Palestinian suffering to choose from, and almost nothing coming from the other side it is not surprising that the end result would appear biased.

This brings up another issue in general about intent of bias.
On the Israeli side of the conflict there is an open and free press. News agencies have access to anything. An editorial from Haaretz that is negative towards is freely read by the world press. From the Palestinian side, all news releases are scripted and authorized by either the PA in Ramallah or Hamas in Gaza.
In reporting the "news" an agency such as Reuters can either report what Hamas tells them, or say nothing at all.
Since their job is not to say nothing at all, they report what Hamas tells them. This of course creates an extreme imbalance and often makes the international press seem like a mere outlet for propaganda.

Posted by: Stan at Mar 6, 2008 5:54:58 PM

Are u crazy or pretending to be crazy your are a bench of blind people you dont see what is happening in palestine you killing babys old people unarm people common you are monsters in the shape of humain beins

Posted by: M.T at Mar 6, 2008 6:01:59 PM

If in fact the bias is so totally blatant and smells of Goebbles Propaganda policy -it is high time a battery of lawyers took Reuters to court.This is not a game -people in Israel are victimized as a direct result of this biased media. When the Al-Dura affair is resovled in the French Court it too should be made known in all the media.
HJ.

Posted by: Harvey Jackson at Mar 6, 2008 6:08:01 PM

Thank you for the good work you are doing in monitoring the international media and exposing its biased coverage of the situation in the middle east.

However, one does not have to go to the international media to find those biases. please read the israeli papers such as Haaretz and yediot Acharonot, and listen to israeli TV stations and you'll find the same biases - stressing the suffering of the palestinian and marginalizing the suffering of those israelies living in sderot and Ashkelon and their neibourhoods. maybe, the forign jurnalsy get their information from Those self hating Israelies who are prominent in the Israeli media.

Posted by: Eli Levanoni at Mar 6, 2008 6:17:53 PM

Dear HonestReporting Editors,

Having gone through your "One year analysis of Reuters 2007 'Pictures of the Month,'" one cannot but understand your passion and nationalist sympathies. After all, a Nigerian proverb says it is only a bastard that would mouth his father's failings in the presence of a known family enemy.
However, as a Christian, and a member of modern humanity, I would be unfair to my conscience if I fail to acknowledge that injustice is behind the Israeli-Palestinian feud. All the violence in the region are mere manifestations of anger and resistance to perceived injustice. It is easy to claim that the Israelis are as victims as the Palestinians in the Middle East imbroglio, but we must ask and answer sincerely the question, what is the origin of the Israeli-Palestinian hatred?. The truth is that the forefathers of modern Israel overran a less sophisticated Arab population in the Palestinian enclave, expropriated their land, and assaulted their personhood, and subjected the 'conquered' natives to perpetual exploitation.
No one is saying Israel should now cease to exist - not even the preponderance of informed Palestinian public opinion. I believe what civilised humanity is saying - never mind the American imeprialist illusions - is that the Israelis, being the obvious 'occupiers', must accept greater responsibility for the crisis in the region and try to drive the processes that would return the area to peace.
I, however, condemn the Palestinian rocket attacks. But such attacks are certainly no justification for the Israeli rain of death on the Palestinian populace.
The Bible says after Jesus Christ gave up the ghost, "Behold, the veil of the temple was rent into two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." Matthew 27:51
Bible scholars have interpreted that verse to symbolise admission of people of all races into God's sonship and heritage, something that was hitherto the exclusive preserve of Israelites. Today, there is a spiritual Israel which emcompasses all human beings. Let us work to uphold justice, truth, and peace in the Middle East. The Israelis must exhibit God's first love to his creatures, which is what the world needs today, much more than unpopular propaganda.

Thank you,

Posted by: Vincent Obia at Mar 6, 2008 7:56:05 PM

I look at the Palestinian pictures for laughs...mostly they are posed or reflective of expected behaviours. They are taught to over-act and don't realize that for most people funerals and the times of such pain don't have the time or emotion for show time.

Posted by: reza santorini at Mar 6, 2008 8:07:22 PM

having not seen the pix's myself It would be a unfair call, this Reuters is not the only misguided group. Look at the ignorant people of who have no real hope. Being led by selfish terrorist leaders from the beginning,and used as a excuse by all of Ish'mael's kin. In my country, usa we give money, an close are ears an eye's because we have made our selves dependent on their drug for our cars and life.The real Big losers ,besides the actual palestinian people, are the one's saying they care an do nothing. Remember Goldie "We can forgive you for killing our sons, but we can't forgive you for making are sons kill your's" keep at it, you do make a difference jamas vonrock

Posted by: jamas Von Rockmann at Mar 6, 2008 8:10:36 PM

The email picturing the Reuters 2007
"pictures of the Month" are most biased
in their Anti-Israeli coverage of the
same subjects. As well, they are app-
arantly meant to evoke pro-Palestinian
suffering.
The fighting is NOT one sided and I for
one resent a pretigous yellow journalism
such as this.
Propaganda at its worst!!! CCShore

Posted by: C C Shore at Mar 6, 2008 8:35:59 PM

In recent weeks, I've spoken with many people about their feelings about what they've been seeing or not seeing. To a person not one of them believed any of the pictures and articles they see. They are aware that Gobel's "tell a big lie long enough and people will believe it" is alive and well in the Arab sectors. However, to a person, none of them had a single bad word about Israel or Jews.

Maybe the Brits have a different world view, but I've found that most Americans don't believe a single thing they've heard about how terrible Israel is.

What Israel has to do is start making a BIG FUSS over the fact that Arabs threaten reporters and photographers with death if they do not report the way they want them to.

What do they do? Nothing. At least nothing of what I am aware.

Posted by: Beverly Kurtin at Mar 6, 2008 10:01:33 PM

Gentlemen,
I hate to point out the obvious, but hasn't Reuters been Moslem owned for the past several years?
What reporter would be so foolhardy as to offend the proprietors who pay
his salary and can make or break his career?
Besides, if you're posted to the Middle East, only Israel permits you journalistic freedom to criticize it. Any Moslem country there can simply strip you of your accreditation if they don't like the stories you file.

Posted by: H. Lowenhar at Mar 6, 2008 10:36:24 PM

Thank you so much. Everyday I ask myself why every picture and story appear to be sympathetic with the Palestinians and the media act as if there is no Israeli suffering or grieving. That is so unfair and judgemental of the media sources.

Posted by: Geraldine at Mar 7, 2008 2:07:53 AM

You just have to keep on exposing Reuters and others. Reuters is going against all definitions of fair and honest journalism. It makes Fox look good. I wonder how exact all its economic and financial data is. Just make sure Reuters get thse messages...

Posted by: robert lustberg at Mar 7, 2008 4:20:28 AM

At my personal level, I am resolved to be my very best: Life is short. I agree that killing of the innocent, is not reported accurately. Brutality is under-reported. Sorrow is a constant companion of the survivors of the senseless brutality.

Posted by: Richard Pond at Mar 7, 2008 5:17:04 PM

Israel has always gotten a bum rap out of the media[liberal]and almost all of them are liberal, our own state dept. and our president calls for Israel to have constraints on any action in answer to arab violence. It is open season on jews and they are made to look and feel like they are a part of the problem in the middle east, all that needs to happen is the arabs to hold their fire, lay down their weapons and peace will break out, maybe, still need to recognize their existence and put them on arab maps and stop educating their children to hate the jews, arabs believe Israel belongs to them with all the land masses they
possess, they also want the jews annilated and that is the biggest problem !

Posted by: clarence puckett at Mar 7, 2008 10:48:29 PM

Another load of garbage from HR.

Did you see the entire stock of photos that the 2500 photos ere chosen from? No. Then obviously you can make no judgement on any "bias" that the choices represent.

Perhaps 80% of the stock of photos available invoke sympathy for Palestinians, becaue Palestinians are very often in situations that provoke a smapthetic response.

In which case if only 62% of the "Monthly photos" are 'sympathetic' then Reuters has actually shown a bias against such photos - exactly the opposite of HRs claim. But it's irrelevant because HR simply can't know which photos weren't chosen.

100% of HRs reports on Reuters photos are stupid.

Posted by: Michael at Mar 9, 2008 8:55:52 AM

This whole situation makes me think, rather perversely I'm afraid, that there should be an Israeli propaganda machine of it's own accord.If there is truth in "An eye for an eye", and the golden rule of "Treat others as you would have them treat you", then there is the basis of not only an Israeli propaganda machine but also the lowering of standards regarding civilian casualties. No I am not advocating more civilian casualties but perhaps a statement that Israel will now use the same techniques as Hamas to treat their terrorist activities that Hamas uses on Israel might have a deterrent effect but I seriously doubt it. It would just create more photo ops.
On one other note, I truly believe that with the current atmosphere of the world, the only possibility for a consistent peace in the middle east is to either partition into smaller areas that are controllable of the entire area of Gaza or to give a time frame for the peace desiring people to get out, and help them do so, and then take it all over once and for all.If they can disperse Hamas into smaller groups, that would simplify the situation.Self defense is an inalienable right in any culture.

Posted by: Bobby K. at Mar 10, 2008 7:07:47 PM

Well.. I think it is bad that there are so many photo-op styled pictures out there giving Israelis a bad image.

On the other hand- who's occupying who? You won't find a picture taken in Israel showing an Arab man in military garb standing at the side of a building.

Palestinians want Israel's occupation to end- I don't find it that unusual or unreasonable to spread that "propaganda" if that's what you believe will get you attention. People have done worse to get attention.. Still, I don't think Israelis should be made to look like devils with evil motives.. that won't help anyone.

Worse propaganda can be seen in Israel and Palestine themselves, anyway.

Posted by: MMARIN at Mar 17, 2008 11:24:56 PM