agencies and "objectivity"

Sparrow said:
... independent as in not owned by an australian megalomanic, fascist aristocrat or other vested interest



that statement in no way represents the author's views and any resemblance to real press barons, alive or dead (or both) is purely coincidental
Click to expand...

I still trust that the New York Times is trying to put as much 'truth' on their pages as possible. I don't trust Rupert and don't read his papers.

I guess you have to put me in the camp of "old fashioned" news consumer. I trust, to some degree, news institutions that appear to place a lot of emphasis on getting their facts correct and double-checked. I don't at all trust tabloid-style knee-jerk spur-of-the-moment news sources. So I stick with NYTimes and PBS Newshour as my main sources of information about what's going on in the world. I'm sure there must be other news sources that can be trusted, but I haven't sought them out.
 
emraphoto said:
on the contrary i think it says a lot about Reuters and many experienced and accomplished journalists agree. the age of Molhem is only the beginning of where the credibility chain breaks. his past behaviour would have eliminated him from any 1st year journalism students list of credible examples. Reuters is also being scrutinized as there are/were many credible journalists/photojournalists working in the region yet Reuters chose to run with the cheapest option versus paying what this work actually costs, to trustworthy and experienced folks. this is a widespread problem within the industry. from friends i understand he was being paid $100 for 10 images per day. that is far below what someone like myself would be paid and i would have a day rate guaranteed. Reuters was DEFINITELY responsible for Molhem's death the minute they sent him cameras and lenses and began to license his images on to The New York Times. Reuters failed to sent a stage 4 vest or helmet along with the cameras. Reuters also failed to relay to it's audience that Molhem's brother was a fighting FSA member which again, would immediately call into question his position.

FROM REUTERS OWN GUIDEBOOK FOR CONTRACTED PHOTOGRAPHERS:

You may move into a dangerous environment only with the authorisation of your superior. Wherever possible the senior regional editor for your discipline should be consulted. Assignments will be limited to those with experience of such circumstances and those under their direct supervision. No journalists will be assigned to a danger zone unless they have completed a Hostile Environment training course.

this is only a small portion of the guidelines however Molhem's eligibility is clearly deficient. combine this with his direct family link to the FSA and yes, many journalists are questioning Reuters trustworthiness, including former long-term Reuters employees.

i will not go into details about the BBC mistake other than to say they had direct access and contact with experienced and credible journalists on the ground and chose to run stock.
Click to expand...
I thought Molhem was a freelancer and not contracted by Reuters? If so, those rules don't apply.

And the fact that BBC had direct access and contact with experienced and credible journalists doesn't mean that they have to use those pictures - the editors choose different. As I said, I don't expect BBC to repeat this mistake.
 
Addy101 said:
I thought Molhem was a freelancer and not contracted by Reuters? If so, those rules don't apply.

And the fact that BBC had direct access and contact with experienced and credible journalists doesn't mean that they have to use those pictures - the editors choose different. As I said, I don't expect BBC to repeat this mistake.
Click to expand...

a freelancer who filed everything with Reuters, who then licensed work on to others for a profit most certainly implies a 'contract' of some degree. the addition of sending him pool gear, at Reuters expense underlines this. Reuters also clearly chose to acquire work from someone who was without any training and/or experience, bypassing the more experienced and credible professionals.

perhaps my point needs more clarity (and i say this with respect and no hint of sarcasm). this is a very large and serious problem Industry wide and we are beginning to witness direct consequences of the wider 'citizen journalism'. all across the board outlets are relying on the cheapest form of acquiring art, a journalism phrase for visual material to support articles.

serious consequences arise from the Barakat story, not least being a young boys life. we cannot overlook the connection this boy had with the FSA. this direct, familial connection and Al Quaeda ties essentially draws a target on other journalists as the regime will see him as an active participant. Reuters was aware of this connection. depending on where you were working, most journalists entering Syria do it through shared contacts. as a result, many of them, questioning why Reuters would facilitate this, had direct contact with Barakat in the past.

you are correct about the BBC mistake i suspect. i hope so. unfortunately the number of large scale outlets that are side-stepping the cost of reporting on conflict by having editors make choices such as that, is concerning to say the least. putting your life on the line for $100 a day is ludicrous. yes Barakat chose that path however the industry wide acceptance and thus support of this suggests some serious soul searching needs to take place.
 
PS the Reuters guidelines i posted were from their freelancers agreement. written by a former bureau chief of over a decade, who is now publicly calling on Reuters for an explanation and re-think of their policies.
 
emraphoto said:
a freelancer who filed everything with Reuters, who then licensed work on to others for a profit most certainly implies a 'contract' of some degree. the addition of sending him pool gear, at Reuters expense underlines this. Reuters also clearly chose to acquire work from someone who was without any training and/or experience, bypassing the more experienced and credible professionals.

perhaps my point needs more clarity (and i say this with respect and no hint of sarcasm). this is a very large and serious problem Industry wide and we are beginning to witness direct consequences of the wider 'citizen journalism'. all across the board outlets are relying on the cheapest form of acquiring art, a journalism phrase for visual material to support articles.

serious consequences arise from the Barakat story, not least being a young boys life. we cannot overlook the connection this boy had with the FSA. this direct, familial connection and Al Quaeda ties essentially draws a target on other journalists as the regime will see him as an active participant. Reuters was aware of this connection. depending on where you were working, most journalists entering Syria do it through shared contacts. as a result, many of them, questioning why Reuters would facilitate this, had direct contact with Barakat in the past.
Click to expand...

Get it, it is wider then just this one case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top