As the use of new media, blogs and the reach of the internet increases, the power of ordinary people to effect change has also increased. Media outlets can no longer ignore the views of organizations such as HonestReporting and its many thousands of subscribers who are prepared to ask questions of the media and to hold them to account.

In this communique we feature two recent examples of responses from Reuters and the BBC to HonestReporting critiques.

REUTERS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RESPONDS TO CALENDAR CRITICISM

We asked our subscribers to address Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger directly on his blog entry regarding Reuter's less than satisfactory response to our critique of its 2007 calendar. Finally, Schlesinger has responded:

Recently, one website - Honest Reporting - suggested its readers send in responses to my posting on photo standards to raise the issue of Reuters 2007 calendar. The calendar became a topic of discussion because one month's photograph was of a Palestinian militant. That photo stood out as most of the others selected for other months were of dancers, swimmers, performers or farmers.

All the pictures in the calendar, selected by a group outside Editorial. were taken by Reuters photographers as part of the extensive and balanced file of photographs we send to subscribers around the world and publish on the Web.

The many comments we have received about the selection will certainly be taken into account the next time any company committee puts together a selection of images for a calendar or other purposes.

We appreciate Schlesinger's willingness to recognize the level of offense that the calendar provoked and hope that more attention will be paid in future to these issues. Credit must also go to you, our subscribers, as well as others such as GIYUS, Instapundit and Pajamas Media, who played such an active role in holding Reuters to account. HonestReporting, will, of course, continue to monitor Reuters and to hold it to the improved standards to which Schlesinger claims the organization will adhere.

Post your comments on this story on our Backspin blog.

BBC OBJECTS TO "WORST USE OF PROPS" AWARD

We received the following email from Steve Herrmann, editor of the BBC News web site. Herrmann was responding to our Dishonest Reporter Awards 2006, in which we singled out a Martin Asser report for "Worst Use of Props." Asser was covering the return of Lebanese civilians to homes in Bint Jbeil after the Israel-Hezbollah war. (See the original blog entry here.)

Herrmann writes:

We would like to correct your allegation of dishonest reporting by BBC journalist Martin Asser in your list of "2006 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Awards". It is completely false to say the boy was used as a "prop" in the photograph (which was taken by BBC News photographer Phil Coomes). The truth is that Asser and Coomes witnessed - and honestly reported - a scene repeated countless times whenever photojournalists are at work: bystanders get in the shot and pose, either of their own accord or encouraged by others - in this case their elders.

The article draws attention to and graphically illustrates an important aspect of the conflict - the dangers to returning inhabitants of places like Bint Jbeil at the time, in an area littered with unexploded ordnance. Your inclusion of it in a list of notorious occasions of misleading picture captions and manipulated photographs is itself utterly wrong and disingenuous. Ironically, it may have been Asser's candour in explaining the boy's presence in the published photograph that alerted those looking for examples of "fauxtography" in the BBC's coverage of the Lebanon conflict.

We do appreciate Asser's candor, noting that the boy was pushed. The info that Herrmann adds--which Asser didn't mention in his report--is that 1) the child was pushed next to the unexploded shell by village elders, and 2) that this occurred repeatedly in other situations.  

While HonestReporting didn't mention who specifically pushed the boy, Herrmann strengthens the essential point of this particular award. It was only due to the presence of photographer Coomes that the boy was pushed--simply to create a photo-op. Coomes surely had plenty of other unstaged photos of people returning to their homes and looking at the shells. In our view, publishing this particular photo makes the BBC complicit in the Lebanese photo-op.  Did HonestReporting overreact? Is the BBC complicit? Are the ethics of journalism at play clear-cut or gray?

Post your comments on this BBC story on our Backspin blog.

Together we can make a difference - please continue to help HonestReporting to promote fairness, ensure accuracy and effect change.