The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Help Save Shirley Temple*! (Continued)

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.



#1 Rhonda Shearer 15-Dec-2007
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
#2 Brian C. Ledbetter 15-Dec-2007

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

#3 Rhonda Shearer 16-Dec-2007
"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
On October 31st, 2007, GBU published Peter M's complaint.

"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 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.
#4 captainfish 23-Dec-2007
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?
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us