On Monday, after a few days of ever-increasing publicity about the horrendous photographs that fabricated events in Lebanon, Reuters withdrew all photographs by Adnan Hajj, the offending freelance Lebanese photographer, and discontinued his contract. They acknowledged that he had altered two images from the battles between Israel and Hezbollah but have yet to explain or acknowledge the scope of the problem. These are, after all, the same folks who doctored the scribbled dinner-time notes between Secretary of State Rice and President Bush, last year.
I understand that individuals have their own points of view. I understand that in our huge complicated world, some people (reporters, news writers, etc.) have been tacitly entrusted with digesting and presenting events in a considered, concise, intelligent and perhaps interesting way. But somewhere along the line, points of view and events came to be ganlionically entwined and, hence, the process is spoiled. Consider just a few examples from the last few years: a respected academic historian fabricated being in the Vietnam War for his "memoir"; a non-fiction book writer "quoted" dialogue from various public figures in reporting about political events; two different newspaper reporters, one in NYC and one in Boston, completely made up people and events for several stories; a tv news anchor used forged documents to support campaign events during an election; photographers created scenes and photographs to make situations look worse for one side of a military conflict. And those are just a very few examples among several dozen that we know of.
At some point, perhaps the demands of thousands of print and broadcast media outlets felt overwhelming to news gatherers, which is perfectly understandable. But instead of developing depth and better ways of examining things carefully, apparently they decided entertainment was the first priority. Oh, and don't forget audience share. We've heard how little they think of their audiences' attention spans or interest in long discussions, despite the enormous success of the History Channel and shows like Ollie North's War Stories, but that doesn't mean they won't do anything to get the audience. Anyway, the news people decided to see what would happen if they jazzed things up a little. And, sure enough, some people liked it. (Some people like
The National Inquirer and
The Star, too, but that doesn't make them truthful.) And it probably wasn't a huge step from jazzing to tweaking just the slightest amount, only to make a point, of course. So maybe Cher didn't marry an alien, and maybe the smoke in Lebanon wasn't thick or dark, but what's the harm in saying so? And what's the harm in saying fifty babies died when one-tenth that many people were injured and no one was killed? Well, the harm of course is (1) reputation, which does matter, and (2) what people do about what they (think they) know happened. If you're told that so-and-so killed your sister, you're probably really angry and want to kill the s.o.b. So you tell everyone about it and him. But what happens if it turns out your sister wasn't there and isn't dead? And how about if you beat up the guy who supposedly killed your sister, except that she wasn't there and isn't dead? And what about all the people who spread the guy's bad rep and won't talk to him any more because he's a murderous creep? Hey, "all" the guy who told you about it was doing was keeping you entertained, right?
Labels: hypocrisy, politics
Here's by far the best version I've seen of the oft-reproduced and thoroughly mocked (deservedly so) Reuters "news" photo of a few days ago. This re-photoshoped rendition is courtesy of 
