Reuters serving as mouthpiece for discredited HRW

Following their usual tidy disclaimer,

Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone,

Reuters acts as a mouthpiece for the corrupt and Nazi-infatuated rights "experts" at Human Rights Watch by publishing an HRW press release which urges the UN to implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report on the war in Gaza.

We won't fully critique the Goldstone report which despite its 575 pages has, within hours of publication, already been stripped of all credibility by other readers 1) here, 2) here, 3) here, and especially comprehensively 4) here, 5) here, 6) here, 7) here, 8) here, 9) here, 10) here, 11) here, and 12) here.

We do however, need to point out a couple of inanities in the press release by HRW which as a result of its partnership with Reuters as an AlertNet member, obtains free and unfettered publishing rights on the Reuters/AlertNet website.

The essence of the press release is to urge the US government, "not to stand in the way of the recommended Security Council action that would for the first time address the conduct of both Israel and Hamas". HRW goes on to aver that:

The Human Rights Council alone is no substitute for the Security Council because Israel has dismissed the council as biased and because the Security Council can refer the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court (ICC)... The ICC, the only permanent international criminal court, is the obvious international tribunal for war crimes committed during the Gaza conflict.

Of course, the International Criminal Court has no power whatsoever to successfully prosecute Hamas leaders for war crimes who after all, represent an outlaw terror group -- not a state -- and are answerable to no international body or legal authority. Thus, only Israeli military officials and/or government leaders would be subject to the prosecution for which HRW bays.

Even Arab states traditionally ignore the ICC. Remember Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir? While he tours the Arab/Muslim world freely, the ICC is still trying to enforce the warrant it issued for his arrest on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Good luck arresting Hamas' Khaled Meshal; we're sure the Syrian authorities will be right on the case.

The UN Security Council is similarly helpless to punish Hamas for war crimes as any international sanctions aimed at ejecting them from power would almost certainly impact negatively on the Palestinian population in Gaza. We wonder if the United Nations, assisted by HRW, would then accuse itself of "collective punishment" and "crimes against humanity" as Goldstone has labeled the Israeli blockade.

HRW then goes on to promote some of its previous accusations of war crimes against Israel, like "shooting civilians who were waving white flags".

Yes, we remember that.

The artful use of the adjective; the verbose use of the verb

Yesterday, we commented on the highly politicized NGO press releases appearing on Reuters AlertNet website. Digging into the "related articles" section of the Palestinian territories portion of the site, we find this whopper propaganda piece from June written by Katie Nguyen. (Note that Nguyen is not an aid worker but a Reuters AlertNet correspondent based in London).

A revealing and informative way to analyze Reuters' handling and perspective on the conflict is to simply list the descriptive terms employed by the writer to advance her story. Let's have a look.

For Nguyen, Israel:

thwarts
flattened
damaged
blockades
frustrates
strangles
forces
restricted
tightened
bombed
invaded
devastated
barred
prohibited
punishes,

while the Palestinians:

struggle
suffer
depend

and are:

traumatized
tired
depressed

In an article of over 800 words, Nguyen devotes five -- "militants firing rockets into Israel" -- to contextualize the war in Gaza which was actually preceded by more than 3,000 rockets and mortars launched against Israeli civilian communities by Palestinian terrorists in 2008 alone.

We can think of a few adjectives to describe that side of the story.

World Vision hitches a ride on Reuters' global wings

We have previously noted how Reuters collaborates with various NGOs, providing them with a publishing outlet on the Reuters' AlertNet website for press releases, appeals for donations, and "reports".

This symbiotic relationship benefits the member NGO which gets royalty-free photographs, free advertising for job vacancies and training programs, and most precious of all, free international publicity for its agenda and campaigns. Reuters, in return, receives compelling content for its website and discharges its charitable duties associated with its Foundation.

Whilst all of this may seem like a worthy philanthropic partnership, we have noted that NGO content published on the AlertNet website is often highly politicized and partisan. As an illustration, we cited a human interest story written by Jennifer Chiodo of World Vision that sought to demonize Israel for a decision by the Israeli High Court to evict Arab squatters in Jerusalem due to their failure to pay rent.

In another article appearing on the Reuters AlertNet website, World Vision promotes an appeal for Israel to provide "full and unrestricted access for spare parts and materials critically needed to restore Gaza's water and sanitation services". One would think this plea would be more aptly directed to the governing terror group Hamas which steals building materials for bunker and rocket production in Gaza.  Even more ironic however, is World Vision's effort to bolster its appeal by averring that:

"Under human rights law all people have the right to an adequate standard of living and the highest attainable standard of health."

For those unfamiliar with the minutia of "human rights law", that assertion is drawn from Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document which has been roundly rejected by the Islamic states of the OIC and Hamas.  Israel being an enlightened democracy is on the other hand, expected to comply with such entreaties despite the obvious danger of providing building materials which are confiscated by her enemies and converted to war materiel.

Reuters expressly disclaims responsibility for the views of its AlertNet NGO partners yet provides them with free and unfettered opportunities to broadcast highly tendentious reports that often have less to do with philanthropy than the politics of demonizing Israel. While we have no issue with Reuters offering its global media platform to worthy charities, we believe it is incumbent upon their editors to demonstrate a commitment to the Reuters Trust Principles by monitoring and moderating NGO content for bias and political advocacy.

Insinuate and inflame

In our post yesterday which looks at Reuters' story on the death of Ghazi al-Zaaneen, we noted Reuters' fatuous claim that Israeli-Palestinian violence in Gaza has been "minimal" since the war ended in January. As demonstrated, the Palestinians have in fact, fired over 200 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilian communities since that time.

Currently featured prominently on the front page of Reuters' AlertNet Middle East website (dedicated to "alerting humanitarians to emergencies") is a highly emotive photo of a young Palestinian girl crying. The caption reads:

"The sister of Palestinian boy Ghazi al-Zaaneen cries during his funeral in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip September 5, 2009. Al-Zaaneen, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, died on Saturday after being wounded in a shooting incident involving Israeli soldiers in the northern border town of Beit Hanoun, Palestinian medical workers said. A military official, who declined to be named, said soldiers had fired warning shots in the Beit Hanoun area on Friday night after spotting Palestinians approaching Israel's border."

Though the loss of a 14-year-old is always tragic, it's fascinating to watch Reuters string together nothing but innuendo in an effort to affix blame to Israel for his death. Note the equivocal language in the caption above: "a shooting incident involving Israeli soldiers"; a "military official who declined to be named"; "soldiers had fired warning shots in the Beit Hanoun area". Reuters actually tells us nothing conclusive about the incident but of course, there is plenty of guilt by association accompanied by an inflammatory photo which betrays an appeal to pity.

If we were reporting on this incident, we would want to know if al-Zaaneen was armed. We would try to determine if he had approached or breached the Israel-Gaza border. We would investigate whether there were other armed Palestinians in the area at the time. If so, we would want to know whether those Palestinians had also fired shots. We would ask the Palestinian medical workers who examined al-Zaaneen to identify the caliber of the bullet which killed him. In other words, we would investigate and report, rather than insinuate and inflame.

But then, we don't work for Reuters.

The incestuous relationship between Reuters and anti-Israel NGOs

Attention was recently focused on the NGO Human Rights Watch with news of that organization's visit to Saudi Arabia to solicit money while boasting of their condemnatory reports on Israel and their political battles with "pro-Israel forces".

This has raised questions again on the integrity and objectivity of various NGOs in their fundraising, reporting, and lobbying activities.

It is perhaps not widely known that Reuters maintains a non-profit trust, the Thomson Reuters Foundation, registered as a charity in the UK and US. According to the foundation's website:

"The charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, it leverages the skills and expertise across the corporation to increase trust and access to the rule of law, to save lives through the provision of trusted information and to improve the standards of journalism."

[charity begins at home, as they say]

In addition to a host of other projects, the Thomson Reuters Foundation created and manages a news network and website called AlertNet which:

"... was started in 1997 to place Reuters' core skills of speed, accuracy and freedom from bias at the service of the humanitarian community."

The Foundation claims a network of 400 contributing humanitarian organizations and "content partners who make use of the AlertNet channel to give their content a wider audience."

Unfortunately, that content is often highly politicized as in the case of this blog post written by World Vision and this finely tuned propaganda piece from Oxfam appearing on the AlertNet website.

(Our focus is not on examining World Vision material but note that in their piece, they refer to the evicted Arab families as being "resettled in Sheikh Jarrah [in 1948] under the protection of the Jordanian government and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency". That would be the same Jordanian government which in 1948, had just invaded and ethnically cleansed Jerusalem of its Jewish inhabitants. How charitable of them and the UN to resettle Arab families in homes from which Jews had been forced out).

Reuters expressly disclaims responsibility for the content of partner material appearing on the AlertNet website but it is notable that these articles are not simply linked; they are fully integrated into the site. Reuters is clearly exercising editorial control both by embracing these organizations as contributing members and in accepting their pieces for publication.

What was that about "accuracy and freedom from bias"?