1 I would guess that they have received a few of those applications from daring bloggers in the last 48 hours, and they had to come up with a rejection "business to business" story on the fly.

2 Reply back telling them that you *are* a business (unincorporated sole proprietorship). If CRA recognizes individuals as businesses in this way, there's no valid reason for anyone else to reject it.

3 Oh yeah, and then the fee will be tax deductible.

4 Seems pretty straight forward to me: Reuters is engaging in a little CYA defensive maneuvering. If they checked you out then they know that nothing good (for them) can come of letting you into the vault so the don't. Although as someone who frequents your blog I greatly appreciate and sympathize with what you're attempting to do, if I put myself in Reuters' shoes it seems like stonewalling you is the obvious thing to do.

5 Good on ya' Steve. Keep at 'em and they'll eventually give in. Looks to me like they have stuff to hide and really don't want their credibility damaged by examination of the biased coverage of the news. Can't figure out why they support a group that would suspend accurate coverage of the news as soon as they could. Strange Brew Pat

6 Steve, if you are really interested in pursuing this further, I have two active Ontario corporations, one of which is ThisCanada.

7 Do your logs show a visit from Reuters between the application and the rejection?

8 Pay to register your blog as a business then apply again. I think it costs something like 60 bucks in Ontario. If that's too much money, maybe a bunch of bloggers can chip in 5-10 bucks each to apply as a business then apply to Reuters.

9 Just a thought: maybe it's because you used a Gmail account as your email address. During the account activation stage, they seem to require a corporate email. Also, Reuters is a news-gathering agency that supports media outlets, not some fine art photography co-op that sells pretty pictures to collectors. Based on their mandate and client base, and the fact that their account registration form is set up to record potential clients' (media-related) company information, I'm thinking that the 'business-to-business' criterion pre-dates this "scandal."

10 A, you might be correct about this policy pre-dating this fiasco, don't know, but when you go to the registration page it gives you an example of an email address which happens to be gmail. I don't think it being gmail is the problem, maybe just the business thing? If nothing else comes from this at the very least every single picture being published in the news is now likely to be scrutinized to the extreme. I hope this promotes more honesty in what we are being fed on a daily basis.

11 Anne: the reason the example is a gmail account is because when I created the link from this blog to Reuters, that's what I typed in. 'testingtesting123@gmail.com' is mine, not Reuters. It could have easily been sometime else entirely. I agree with your second paragraph though. Anything that encourages honesty in the news industry is a good thing in my book.

12 Wholesale Jerseys - Buy Cheap Jerseys from Chinese Wholesalers

13 I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.2013uggboots.net

1 "It is just as likely that Reuters will forever be as mistrusted a news source as, well, CBS, and nothing will ever fix that. Not even an army of Katie Courics snapping photos." Well, no. Photojournalism long ago walked away from integrity in reporting. None of the mainstream global media machines have any interest in policing their reportage. The game is to try and find a balance of theatre that gets ratings, sells papers, airtime, whatever benefits the bottom line. This misadventure will have no impact whatsoever on Reuters. As the old advertizing saw says for the media biz, "even bad news is good news" for business. In an age where the major national state sponsored media outlet of a self-assessed "tolerant and democratic multicultural nation" can bend and twist reportage to fit political and personal agendas, there is no hope for altruism in unregulated global businesses.

2 Steve, you're assuming anyone in the media cares a damn about accuracy and integrity. That's because you are a good person, and you like to assume the best about others. Given the "news" coverage I've seen for TWENTY YEARS on the gun issue I must sadly say one cannot assume the best about our media. There has been no lie about firearms and their owners so heinous that the media won't run it as God's own truth. Israel is currently receiving the same smear job that gun owners are used to getting. And smokers, and SUV owners, and corporations, and etc. Reuters will not only get a pass, they will get a ratings bump. They know this. That's why they ran it. My only satisfaction in all this is to watch the share prices and prifit reports of the major US media companies continue their death spiral. Eventually they will clever themselves into bankruptcy. What goes around, comes around.

3 Can Reuters ever be trusted again to deliver news, and not use clients as a means of promoting a particular point of view? I'd say yes. Let's not get carried away. Punish the offending parties, but keep in mind that Adnan Hajj is one photographer out of 600, within a Reuters news division staff of 2,300. And the Reuters employee who sent the email death threat (and who was suspended for doing so) wasn't a news division staffer at all (Reuters employs some 15,000+ people in its 4 business divisions, of which news is only a small part). Sounds more like two acts of spectacular stupidity motivated by personal politics rather than a subversive organizational agenda.

4 Well, R. Capa, I wonder how many other rotten apples in the barrel there are; its a legitimate question and concern. Just because these are the only two caught so far, doesn't mean there aren't any more. I wouldn't be surpised in the least.

5 What kills me is that there was no need to doctor the photograph at all: the original photograph still shows heavy smoke rising from a Beirut neighbourhood. It's not like Hajj took a photo of a peaceful neighbourhood and added wreckage, flames and smoke. The neighbourhood was already in bad shape. Hajj is not thinking clearly if he thinks that we aren't shocked enough by Israel's actual mass devastation of Lebanon, such that he thinks adding a little smoke will really get us out of our chairs. We already know about the 1000+ dead Lebanese, 90% of whom are civilians. We've seen the shellshocked old women, the little children torn apart, the blown up bridges, the ambulances with missile holes in them, and the photos of the dead Canadians.

6 I just can't believe that no one else noticed the repetitive smoke patterns and the cloned building... surely someone, even the peon who uploaded the photo into the database or placed it on the web should have noticed.

7 http://youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys Some more "journalism" for us to watch and learn from.. watch all 18 minutes very interesting..

8 The Grunt: Oh, I agree. Odds are that there are other photogs out there with a copy of Photoshop, a Reuters (or AP, or Getty, or Magnum...) email account, and their own personal agendas. This is true of any organization with staff in the thousands, whether in the news industry, or business, or politics, or whatnot. I was just taking issue with some of the wording. "Can Reuters ever be trusted again to deliver news..." and "It is just as likely that Reuters will forever be as mistrusted a news source as, well, CBS, and nothing will ever fix that" are a tad premature and excessive, no? They imply that the rot is systemic, and that these incidents have somehow fundamentally undermined the 150-year old organization's credibility. Maybe in the eyes of some, but I'd submit that many of these same folks were already of the mind that all MSM is corrupt. For the rest of the consuming public, I doubt this is a deal-breaker.

9 I think what is most sinister here is the very likely possibility that Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qada have infiltrated Reuters. I suspect that if we dig a bit deeper we will find a concentrated effort by these groups to create a very effective propganda arm for themselves.

10 The suggestion that this fraud was commited by a single person acting alone doesn't wash. Reuters claims that all photos are reviewed by editors (plural) before they are released. It is somewhat hard to believe that no one noticed what can only be described as a sloppy attempt to alter the photo. Reuters is going to have to do a lot more than make a scapegoat out of the person who got caught if they dont't want this to hurt their reputation.

11 I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.cheapNikeMercurialVapor9.com

1 aparrently Reuters has already fessed up to this Shoppery.

2 "A Reuters photograph of Beirut burning MIGHT HAVE been faked." Steve...you're getting soft in your old age... ;-)

3 There's no might about it. Reuters has admitted it was doctored. Another HUGE victory for blogs over the MSM. This will be in all of the papers tomorrow..regardless of how reluctant the MSM is to report it. It's truly a disgusting piece of work. Who can believe any of this crap the media tries to sell? I had huge doubts about the whole Qana 'massacre'. This is the same media that takes Hezbollah's word at face value. Props for the blogs for being the beacon of truth.

4 Oh man. And they still deny "media bias." This should be made illegal.

5 Whoever altered the photo should not only be fired for breach of conduct, but also publicly shamed for such an incompetent photoshop job. It's bizarre that the photo was even doctored. Nobody disputes that buildings in Beirut were bombed -- why not just go with the original snap, which even in an unaltered state, is compelling in its own right. For a more objective view of infrastructure damage in Beirut, take a look at some satellite images, available here and here.

6 as a professional photographer who specializes in black and white portraiture and fine art prints, i use film most of the time. that being said, i use digital technology also. that's a pretty bad photo chop to be sure. however, it's hardly evidence of a vast left-wing media conspiracy to "fake" the consequences of disastrous israeli foreign policy. the photographer who sold this image has damaged his own cause by manipulating the cold hard facts. lebanon is a disaster and civilians are dying daily.

7 Jeff: Are they? That's the point of the complaint. Truth in reportage has been sadly lacking of late, and this is a particularly silly example of how bad it can be. I don't doubt there are casualties, bombings, fires, etc. But how much? How many? I'm not there, and frankly I can't trust the report of the MSM who is supposed to be "covering it" (not covering it, up). And "Lebanon is a disaster and civilians are dying daily." Oh? you're there, are you? Being a professional photographer means squat - I do B&W (and colour) fine art photography too. I can chop you the most incredible war zone shots. But are they true? Dunno, how much you paying? As an aside, some of the very worst shopped prints turn up on the front page of the G&M.

8 This just more of the same photographer's work that is intended to further the Islamic cause. Check out his Kana photograph of the ever present mortician with the young girl being held up for viewing. (Seems that this poor girl is being used after her death for a variety of photo ops.) Another photograph that is being examined as a fraud. And to think that the West eats this sh4t up and calls it accurate news reporting is beyond belief. Pat

9 And to think that the West eats this sh4t up and calls it accurate news reporting is beyond belief. Let's keep some perspective here. This one photographer and his work has been discredited -- that's not in dispute here. But neither is there any dispute over the growing civilian death tolls on either side of the conflict. Everyone agrees that Qana did happen, that dozens of innocents, including children, died there. For every one dishonest photog, there are thousands more who are responsible and fair. Moreover, all states and military use graphic images of death and destruction as patriotic propaganda. Morally questionable, but nothing new there. In any case, claiming that the MSM is guilty of bias is a false accusation, because the condemnation comes equally from the right and the left. Like Steve's previous blog posting on Fox News vs. CNN, arguing for the existence of vast media conspiracy misses the point, which is that all publications have their particular editorial slants. Though there are degrees of subtlety, everyone's guilty of shaping the news. Some, like the Globe and Mail, have even been accused simulataneously of being too conservative-friendly (by the left) and too liberal-friendly (by the right). Additionally, let's not forget the reader, whose own political leanings wil influence whether bias is detected or not. An alternative approach? Read widely, and often. Embrace viewpoints that differ from your own. Never put your trust in a single source. Read the G&M, but also read the National Post. Watch Fox News, but also check out BBC World and CNN. Explore the alternative press. Do not avoid bias, but do not be seduced by it either. Be extremely cautious of -- and avoid entirely where possible -- editorialists, columnists, TV pundits, and personality-driven shows like Anderson Cooper 360' and Hannity & Colmes, which all seek to sell to you their particular perspectives, whether 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Track down cited sources, reports, publications, etc. Read them, and decide for yourself what to believe.

10 Wholesale jerseys outlet,2012 Nike NFL jerseys wholesale China

11 I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.lebronjames9galaxy.com