Tuesday, February 09, 2010



Reuters: An Obama lapdog?



On 3rd., I wrote (scroll down) of "A Reuters journalist who will be looking for a new job soon". Guess what?
"Journalist Whose Article Was Retracted Leaves Reuters

The journalist who wrote an article on Monday that turned into an embarrassment for Reuters and a cause for some conservatives has left the wire service, the company said Friday. A Reuters spokeswoman declined to say whether the journalist, Terri Cullen, left voluntarily, or why. “I can’t really go into any detail,” said the spokeswoman, Courtney Dolan.

Ms. Cullen stepped down less than a month after being hired for the newly created position of wealth management editor. She had worked for more than a decade for The Wall Street Journal Online.

Her article said that President Obama’s budget amounted to a backdoor tax increase for middle-income and even lower-income people, based largely on the scheduled expiration of income tax cuts passed in 2001. But the president had actually proposed keeping those cuts in place for all but high-income families.

After a complaint from the White House, Reuters withdrew the article, stating that it was inaccurate.

Source

Whether the article was inaccurate or not is not what interests me here. What I would like to know is how many articles Reuters withdrew in response to requests from the Bush White House? Should ANY White House be pressing news organizations to withdraw articles? What happened in this instance sounds to me very much like censorship, albeit censorship with a willing accomplice.

You can read the censored article here. A blogger caught it before it disappeared.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree completely that news organisations should be vigilant to ensure that they do not make editorial or staffing decisions based on pressure from the powers that be - that would mean the end of a free press. I do, however, think that any organisation that trades in information has a vested interest in making sure that its information is accurate and having a reputation for accuracy.
This journalist appears to have make a mistake. There are sometimes consequences for that. Had she been right and still came under pressure - then I would be screaming it from the rooftops.

Anonymous said...

Withdrawing the article instead of issuing a correction is an unusual step but would at least be consistent with the subsequent action of no longer employing the author.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:37, did she make a mistake with her facts, or is she now unemployeed because she didn't make a mistake? Apparently, the lady didn't know that the last thing the media wants if facts and truth, especially if those facts interfere with their Leftist agenda.

I am both amazed and amused by those who still believe there is a "free" press in this country. When the media is a clear advocate for one political side, there is no longer a free press. They simply become a tool of that political agenda, as they clearly have. The only time "free" comes into it, is when the media becomes free to do and say whatever they wish, create their own news, and invent their own facts, all to further their agenda. As is the case now.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure how to contribute an article but this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_handshake_refusal
offers an interesting question about whose discrimination trumps whose. Muslim religious sensitivity versus sexist discrimination against women.