Reuters = al Zarqawi propagandists

I came across this Reuters piece today, the headline having caught my eye. And therein Reuters' work was done. They had manipulated, propagandized, and disseminated the headline to do just that -- catch the eye of the casual reader who would read the headline only, shake his head at the death and destruction of innocents being wrought by the U.S. in Iraq, and move on without reading further. However, I did read further. And what I read made me very angry.

In case you haven't clicked on my link to the article, here's the Reuters headline:

U.S. Raids Kill Family of 6 in Rebel-Held Iraqi City

Quite a disturbing headling wouldn't you say? I begin to read the article -- 2nd paragraph reads:

A Reuters witness saw a man and a woman and four children, two boys and two girls, being pulled out of the rubble of a razed home in Falluja.

The first thing that jumps out at me here is "Reuters witness". This clearly indicates that the person who wrote this piece didn't see this first-hand but rather heard it second-hand. And just who is this "Reuters witness"? I'm not a journalist but I would venture a guess that Journalism 101 must emphasize somewhere the importance of identifying eyewitnesses by name to help authenticate a story. But that's okay. Like I say, I'm not a journalist and I'm willing to cut them some slack here. I'm a bit skeptical at this point but still open to the idea that a U.S. bomb has caused a terrible tragedy. I mean, it's not like there's a conflicting account by some other reliable source, right? I read on to the third and fourth paragraph:

The U.S. military denied a family of six was killed, saying it launched four strikes against safehouses used by Zarqawi's fighters in the city of Falluja west of Baghdad.

"Intelligence sources indicate a known Zarqawi propagandist is passing false reports to the media," the military said in a statement.

At this point it would behoove the reader to glance back up and read once again the headline of the Reuters piece. Based on what we've learned in this article up to this point, don't you think the infinitesimally LEAST that Reuters could do is insert the word...uh...oh...I don't know..."allegedly"...into that headline? In fact, I would go so far as to say it's not the least they can do but it's their damn duty to do so. Or how about this, Reuters? -- "U.S. Military Denies Raid Kills Family Of Six - Cites Zarqawi propaganda". Says it all wouldn't you say? Let's read on shall we?:

Reuters television footage showed men chanting "There is no God but Allah!" as they carried...

Uh oh, here it comes. "Reuters television footage"...I'm about to have egg on my face. They've captured this on film. But let's finish that sentence shall we?...

...the body of the father of the family of six. (bold emphasis mine)

Well that clinches it, doesn't it? I mean there's footage of them carrying a dead guy around. No dead wife that we can see. No dead children, but that's the father, yup. But wait...If you view the article, there's a picture. It appears to be someone carrying a child. I click to enlarge the picture, thinking that they've finally got the goods on me. Here's the picture:



Now what does this picture tell me? Well, I suppose there could be a child in that blanket and I suppose it could also be a sack of potatoes. Sorry, Reuters. This won't cut it.

Shame on you.