To be clear, the news organizations haven’t rejected the claim that the freelance photographers they worked with were complicit in the attacks. They’ve just rejected the claim that they (the news organizations) were complicit, and have cut ties with the photographers who are alleged to be complicit.
Some of the freelance photographers appear to have accompanied Hamas members on attacks on civilians, in a way that implies that they knew the attack was going to happen and were able to prepare to cover it.
The New York Times, which works with Yousef Masoud, another of the four photojournalists, called the accusations that its newsroom had advance knowledge of the attacks “untrue and outrageous”.
“We also want to speak in defense of freelance photojournalists working in conflict areas, whose jobs often require them to rush into danger to provide first-hand witness accounts and to document important news. This is the essential role of a free press in wartime,” a statement by the newspaper said.
Well NYT of all people defending the journalist, the rest denied their knowledge of the attack, Reuter and CNN cut ties. The allegation is made by Dishonest Reporting is simply untrue.
It also means these companies don’t have working financial controls. They gave money to people who they knew have a close connection to terrorists and may be members of a terrorist organization.
This isn’t JJ Jameson asking for pictures of spiderman. At best, it’s paying someone who had enough of a connection to Hamas to be told exactly where to go along the 60km border within an hour of the start. At worst, they may even be members who are supplementing their Hamas paycheck.
Reuters legal department should have signed off on every freelancer they contract with. That should have included a sanctions check - which clearly was not sufficient.
To be clear, the news organizations haven’t rejected the claim that the freelance photographers they worked with were complicit in the attacks. They’ve just rejected the claim that they (the news organizations) were complicit, and have cut ties with the photographers who are alleged to be complicit.
Some of the freelance photographers appear to have accompanied Hamas members on attacks on civilians, in a way that implies that they knew the attack was going to happen and were able to prepare to cover it.
Well NYT of all people defending the journalist, the rest denied their knowledge of the attack, Reuter and CNN cut ties. The allegation is made by Dishonest Reporting is simply untrue.
Read closely. They’re saying the newsroom didn’t have advance knowledge of the attacks; not that the independent photographer didn’t.
It also means these companies don’t have working financial controls. They gave money to people who they knew have a close connection to terrorists and may be members of a terrorist organization.
They gave money to freelance journalists for their pictures.
That’s what they do.
This isn’t JJ Jameson asking for pictures of spiderman. At best, it’s paying someone who had enough of a connection to Hamas to be told exactly where to go along the 60km border within an hour of the start. At worst, they may even be members who are supplementing their Hamas paycheck.
Reuters legal department should have signed off on every freelancer they contract with. That should have included a sanctions check - which clearly was not sufficient.
Well if that’s the logic that you are using here is a good one.
Qatar send money to Isreal to send to Hamas. Because Hamas is an acting government with different branches including there military branch.
US have one of the biggest military bases in Qatar.
So if the US says Hamas is terrorists, then US and Isreal are directly involved in funding them and should be sanctioned.
Not how sanctions work. You can legally do business with a SDGT or FTO if you get a waiver from the US Department of Treasury.
They only really hand those out to state actors as part of negotiated agreements.
Reuters does not have such an agreement.