Reuters
A credible crackdown
The news agency's handling of dishonest journalism serves as an inspiration to Singapore about media objectivity. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Aug 8, 2006

Two Reuters photographs were doctored apparently to enhance their effect, leading to Mr. Adnan Hajj, the Reuters cameraman's 920 other photos being withdrawn.

It may sound excessively harsh, but having worked at Reuters for 10 years from 1960, which launched my journalist career, I am not a bit surprised.

I can understand what impact the revelation had for the London-based international news agency.

I got my job there when I was 20 because I gave an answer that seemed to satisfy its then Manager for Asia, Mr. David Chipp. He asked me whether I understood what 'objectivity' meant and I replied, "Being neutral".

I eventually learned that the question reflected Reuters' underlying credo under all circumstances.

And when I was assigned to Vietnam, where I served for 3-1/4 years (between 1966-1970), I had many chances to learn what objective reporting really meant when covering a war in which each side considered itself the good guy.

To the Americans, of course, the National Liberation Front (NLF), the political arm of the Vietcong, was communist pure and simple, but the NLF had always said it was not. So Reuters referred to them as 'pro-communist'.

To call them differently was not an option. It would have meant taking sides.

More currently, it has upset many Americans by refusing to call al Qaeda operatives"terrorists". I remember an American ambassador pulling up a Reuters bureau chief publicly to express disappointment about it.

Critics charge that the news agency is taking its "neutral" role to a ridiculous extent.

Nevertheless, few detractors have accused it of deliberate biased or slanted reporting in favour of one side or the other.

That of course, does not exclude errant journalists, like photographer Adnan Hajj, who as humans sometimes get emotional about what they cover. Recalcitrants don't last long.

I find that Reuters (other agencies too) brings trust and professionalism to media coverage, a quality I wish our mass media in Singapore - both mainstream and online - has a lot more of.

In this period of transition, Singapore needs an open, credible press that can rally Singaporeans and bond them with the nation, rather than with the ruling political party.

Today's media here is nothing close to the likes or Reuters or BBC in covering or analysing Singapore, without which it will be hard to build public trust in the government.

Currently, we have a staunch pro-government media, to which the authorities seem to do little or no wrong, and a much smaller - but more vocal and passionate - online voice, which generally criticises whatever the government does - good or bad.

Neither can contribute very much to nation-building because what each says is often dismissed as too one-sided and motivated.

To become an international city compatible with London, New York or Tokyo, Singapore needs a Reuters or a BBC (not the tabloid types).

The Reuters lapse

What really happened?

It began when it discovered that its Lebanese freelance photographer had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Deliberately manipulating an image - in this case with help of digital technology - is strictly forbidden just as writing a false piece of news.

All Adnan's 920 photos were removed from the Reuters database, which immediately excludes them from future sale.

One photograph was taken by him of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on suburban Beirut. It was manipulated using Photoshop software to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings.

Another was of an Israeli F-16 fighter over Nabatiyeh, southern Lebanon and dated Aug 2, which had also been changed to increase the number of flares dropped by the plane from one to three.

Hajj worked for Reuters as a non-staff contributing photographer from 1993 until 2003 and again since April 2005. Most of his work was in sports photography, much of it outside Lebanon.

Questions about the accuracy of the photograph arose after it appeared on news Web sites on Saturday.

Several blogs, including a number, which accuse the media of distorted coverage of the Middle East conflict, said the photograph had been doctored.
Littlespeck.com