snapped shot

now in ap-approved text mode

 
What happened to the pictures? Exhibit A, Exhibit B
Will they ever come back? Yes and no

Help Save Shirley Temple*! (Continued)

Brian C. Ledbetter · Friday, December 14. 2007 12:43
I had a little bit of fun with this story yesterday, but failed to point out that Rhonda Shearer and team really have put quite a lot of effort into documenting some of the inconsistencies she uncovered in the original "Fire Doll" story.

For instance, here's a really fascinating comparison:

On the left, a doll that has been genuinely destroyed by fire. On the right, Mario Anzuoni's controversial "fireproof" doll. (Source: SJ)


For more details, be sure to go and read the report. I'll definitely be waiting to hear more from SJ.
permalink · Fact-checking · Comments (4) · Trackbacks (0) · digg this
 

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments [RSS]
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here is what a handful of random people think about this article. But first, the fine print:
The opinions expressed here, even where approved for display, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website, the management, or any other entity or organization, with the exception of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy. Those opinions we represent in style, yo. Please keep the language in these comments clean, as this is intended to be a family-friendly, work-friendly website. Comments not compliant with this policy will be edited for content where necessary. Abusive or otherwise illegal comments will be reported to the proper authorities, up to and including the aforementioned Vast Zionist Conspiracy. The Management cannot and will not be held responsible for commenters making a spectacle of themselves, even if The Management are the said commenters in question. In other words, don't take yourself so seriously, folks. We're all here to discuss the news, and more importantly, to have fun. Now go get yourself into some OCD treatment program—you obviously need it if you actually read all of this mess.

Rhonda Shearer on 2007-12-15 06:07 #1
*Just to clarify...Tom Glocer promised me that he would "launch a full investigation" into my allegation that Mario Anzuoni, Reuters employee and doll photographer, put his friend Chris Weeks up to sexually harassing me (and my daughter) with a porn-filled campaign that included Reuters editors, despite my warnings, posting links to XXX attacks on Reuters blogs. It's surreal. More at http://www.stinkyjournalism.org
Reply  
Brian C. Ledbetter on 2007-12-15 09:42 #2
*Rhonda,

Thank you for clearing that up! My apologies to you, and to Tom Glocer, for passing on incorrect information.

Regards,
Brian
Reply  
Rhonda Shearer on 2007-12-16 08:48 #3
*"Thanks" and "My apologies" those words make all the difference. The error wasn't a big deal for me. The greatest part is that you, without hesitation, qualification, hedging, or offers of mitigating circumstances--just plain said it. MsM should pay attention and learn how to do it right.

Stinky Journalism's view: Everyone makes mistakes. It's unavoidable, despite our best efforts. Therefore, accuracy is a feedback process, not a fixed state.

That full loop includes; when an error occurs: to look the error; the person who made the error; identify cause and set a new procedure (its called learning) and consider the feelings of the people who informed you of the error or who were impacted by the error and give "thanks" and "apology."

With sadness, I note that the Reuters The Good, The Bad & The Ugly (GBU) blog, even though its charged with admitting errors and dealing with the public, provides none of the proper and civil "thanks" or "apologies" that readers just saw here on snappedshot.

It seems that MsM sees "apology" as weakness,which is a vestiage of the past when they held all the cards. Thank God, or shall I say,instead, thank Internet, that such ubiquitous power and control is no longer available to MsM who clearly misused it.

Blogs, such as snappedshot, teach MsM, by example, how to behave and properly treat their readers. Reuters,as for- profit-making folks, should treat the public with more kindness, courtesy and respect. We are called "customers."

Instead, even when a GBU reader submitting an error is 100% correct, the response is abrupt, and too often arrogant and rude. Certainly, no humility or kindness is evidenced by GBU editors.

I just pulled, at random, only one example from the GBU site

http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2007/10/31/your-move/
On October 31st, 2007, GBU published Peter M's complaint.

Peter M. REUTERS'CUSTOMER:
"There is a story about the conviction of Russia’s “Chessboard Killer” on your website, and on the same page, an advertisement for HP printers that clearly displays a chessboard.

I’m not sure if this is someone in your ad department having a laugh or not, but it’s very inappropriate and disrespectful to the relatives of the people who were murdered."


GBU EDITORS' RESPONSE: "No, nobody was having a laugh. It was pure coincidence. We removed the ad, although yours was actually the only complaint we received."

No "thanks for writing" or "apology" of any kind. Tell me if you think I am wrong. But, for me, the subtext of the GBU editor's response is "you're a freakin idiot for pointing this out. But since you did, we will begrudgingly change it." Unrepentant. Rude. If I were Peter M, I would not write GBU again...is this the GBU editors intent?

Look through the history of GBU and see for yourself...

This GBU editorial approach of a dismissive and disrespectful treatment of its customers, is the very atmosphere (and lack of managerial control) that gave birth to the bizarre porn-filled campaign against me (and my daughter).

SJ will not be silenced by Reuters, their employees' or their employee's friends.
Reply  
captainfish on 2007-12-23 18:42 #4
*Rhonda,
I just looked over the link provided by Brian here. And I also read some of the publicly-viewable comments at al-Reuters that were directed at you.

Good questions should never be attacked.

Here is something that I thought of in this context. If a bank put out a fake financial statement in which some numbers were fudged a bit, who in their right mind would trust the very next published statement? No one. They would be run over with a fine tooth comb and the bank would go out of its way to PROVE that it has fixed its mistakes and is now striving to provide truth in its material.

To actively defend the bank and its previously published fake materials is beyond sanity. Why attack a person who would ask further questions of the second published statement if that person thinks they may have found inconsistencies. If like al-Reuters, the bank refuses to clear up the confusion and actively engages in practices to attack the questioner, then who is the one that looks bad??

Rhonda, keep up the fight. And, tell those who demand why it is YOU who should get the photos from al-Reuters, that no, you just want everyone to get them. You just want a copy as well. And, al-Reuters does not have to release them to anyone in particular. they can just post them on their website for anyone to look at. That should be easy for a news/photo journalism outlet right?
Reply  

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

HTML-Tags will be converted to Entities.
Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
BBCode format allowed
Gravatar/MyBlogLog/Favatar/Pavatar author images supported.