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.

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"?