July 24, 2003

The "We Just Make It Up" Journalism Award:

Reuters Vies with BBC and the New York Times for Top Honors in Low Game

Yesterday I cited Reuters as a media outlet that exemplifies ADD/HD in that it: "Fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes." I was too kind. I should have said that it is an organization that lies and uses others to give its lies credibility.

Today's Opinion Journal features, among others, Dear Elizabeth: I Didn't Do It - "Why did Reuters put my name on a horribly slanted story?" by Deanna Wrenn. Ms. Wrenn was horrified to find that the once-truthful news organization had hijacked her name in order to put forward its own dubious agenda. Wrenn's article states:

This is from a story that Reuters news service ran this week with my byline:
"Jessica Lynch, the wounded Army private whose ordeal in Iraq was hyped into a media fiction of U.S. heroism, was set for an emotional homecoming on Tuesday. ... Media critics say the TV cameras will not show the return of an injured soldier so much as a reality-TV drama co-produced by U.S. government propaganda and credulous reporters."

Got problems with that?

I do, especially since I didn't write it.

Here's what I sent last week to Reuters, a British news agency that compiles news reports from all over the world:

ELIZABETH--In this small county seat with just 995 residents, the girl everyone calls Jessi is a true heroine--even if reports vary about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her ordeal in Iraq.

"I think there's a lot of false information about her story," said Amber Spencer, a clerk at the town's convenience store.

Palestine resident J.T. O'Rock was hanging an American flag and yellow ribbon on his storefront in Elizabeth in preparation for Lynch's return.

Like many residents here, he considers Lynch a heroine, even if newspaper and TV reports say her story wasn't the same one that originally attracted movie and book deals...."

..... I understand that news wire services often edit, add, remove or write new leads for stories. What amazed me was that a story could have my byline on it when I contributed only a few sentences at the end--and in later versions I didn't contribute anything at all.

Ms. Wrenn is justified in her outrage, but any hopes she has for an apology or correction will have to wait for the second coming. Like the BBC and the NYT, Reuters has long been in the thrall of hacks, quacks, and the sad sacks of what passes for journalism in that agency. Our advice to Ms. Wrenn is to stop asking "Why?" and to start drawing the obvious conclusions.

Posted by Vanderleun at July 24, 2003 9:35 AM
Bookmark and Share