What in the Hell is Wrong With Reuters?

So, I'm flipping through the news online and I end up over there at Reuter's. Reuter's. Which bills itself as "...the world's leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals." They also claim to "...combine industry expertise with creative technology to deliver critical information to leading decision makers....powered by the world's most trusted news organization." Sounds pretty impressive, does it not? Not so fast.

So, the story that I had clicked on was titled "Car loses all four wheels on highway". Now, you can debate the newsworthiness of that all you'd like, but regardless of your conclusion, you'd still have to admit that it's interesting. All four wheels?! That's quite the feat! I'd say it's newsworthy. It's not worth leading off your newscast with or anything like that, but it could definitely make it's way into a news lineup, say, right before Britney Spears.

Apparently, what ended up happening was that the dumbasses who were in the car had changed the tired from the winter tires to the summer tires. They were in Switzerland, so with the drastic change in climate between those two seasons, one with a lot of snow and one with no snow, having two sets of tires and switching them out is pretty standard.

What's also pretty standard is that the correct type of nuts are used when mounting the new set of tires. And, according to a statement by the St. Gallen (that's in Switzerland) police, "When they then drove back on to the motorway, all of the wheels disconnected." Yes, I imagine that they would. Morons.

But what does any of that have to do with Reuter's? The picture that accompanied this brief tale of vehicular incompetence is where my annoyance with Reuter's began. Here's the smaller version. Behold!

Now, I realize that's a little hard to see, but that's kind of my point. Well, part of it, anyway. So when I saw that picture, I couldn't quite figure it out because it looked to me like there was a cat on top of that wheel. I read the story again and there was no mention of a cat AT ALL. Fortunately (or unfortunately, as I wanted to pound my head against a wall after I noticed that) I could click where it said "Enlarge" in order to do just that. Enlarge the photo. Hence the name. So I did. Behold!

That's when I realized that it is, indeed, a cat, yes a cat, a cat on a tire! And again, fortunately or not, this time there was a caption for the photo. It read: "A pet cat finds shelter on the wheel of a car which was temporarily abandoned by it owner in Karachi August 29, 1998." ::: blink::: ::: blink :::

Um, WTF?!?!

First of all, 1998?!?! You can't find a more recent picture of the wheel of a car than one from 1998?! Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that. You can't find a more recent picture of the wheel of a car than one from 1998...with a cat?!?! There were no photos of tires/wheels sans cats?!?! In the past eleven years?!?! The point of this story was that all of the wheels fell OFF! Right there, underneath that cat? That looks like wheel to me!

Second, I thought Karachi was an interesting name for a city or town in Switzerland. It didn't sound very Swiss. So I looked it up. IT'S IN PAKISTAN!! It wasn't even a cat on a tire in the right country!!

So Reuter's "the world's leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals" thinks that it's a good idea to include an eleven year old picture of a cat on a tire in Pakistan as the ONLY photo accompanying their story about a car that lost all four wheel on the highway in Switzerland?? They're the leading source?? Leading?! As in "others will follow"? THAT kind of leading?!

Leading us right off of a cliff from what I can tell. Maybe I'll start doing that. You know, just inserting random photos from decades earlier that have at least one thing to do with the story (as long as that thing is not the country that the story takes place in) but that also definitely include a cat. Maybe even change the name to "Random and Old Foreign Cats". Who knows? The possibilities are endless when you start delving in at this level of stupidity.

We're doomed. Doomed, I say.

Sphere: Related Content

Looking Up To Reuters

From the apparently versatile folks over there at Reuters in New York, we have an article that is headlined with "Reuters evacuates NY newsroom in powder scare". Wait. Then who's writing that article?

Apparently, an envelope was opened by a one Brian Rhoads, the managing editor for the Americas (I'm assuming that's referring to the publication and not the geographical masses) and a "puff of powder" came out of it. Now, that's different that a "powder puff", which would be really strange, but likely not cause for evacuation.

So they evacuated the 140 staff members on the entire 19th floor and three hours later, after a thorough investigation consisting of who knows what, it was declared safe to return to work! No word on what the powder was, how they knew it was safe, why it only took three hours, and how this cop and his pen fit into the investigation.

It would seem that earlier this month, several other letters, "...many containing a suspicious white powder, were sent to Chase bank offices and two other financial institutions in several states and to the New York Times headquarters in New York." Isn't ANY white powder that comes flying out of your mail going to be "suspicious"? At least until you find out what it is? And even if it isn't anthrax, which US authorities claim to have been "on alert for since 2001", any substance that comes flying out of my mail is going to be deemed "suspicious" by me. I don't care if it's powdered sugar, Columbian cocaine, that stuff that Pixie Stix are made of, all of it is quite odd if it's flying out of my mail!

According to a one Paul Browne, the spokesman for the NYPD, "no link had been established between the alert at The New York Times and the letters sent to financial institutions, and there was no immediate indication the latest incident was related either." Now, is that supposed to be good news or bad news? It kind of comes across as good news, but if you think about it, it's really not so good. Look, if I'm going to have some nutjob out there mailing stuff containing talcum powder or baking soda, I'd prefer it if it were only ONE nutjob, thank you. I don't want a whole slew of nutjobs out there doing this sort of thing.

I think I would have rather had the guy say, "For the past three hours, we have thoroughly investigated the latest powder in the mail incident. Right now, it's time for lunch and we're a little hungry for all of the investigating. So you'll be happy to know that it's from the same nutjob whose probably hiding out in his parent's basement in the middle of Kansas somewhere and there's nothing to worry about because it's just that one guy. Thank you and have a nice day." It sure sounds a lot better than, "I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Look, just get back to work. What do you want from us?"

But here's my question: So, they evacuate everyone from the 19th floor and they all (presumedly) go outside to stand around and wait. Below are some pictures that were taken when they were all whisked outside. Did they make them all lie on the ground? Are the photographers at Reuters only one and a half feet tall? Why are all of the photos taken as if the person taking them was lying with their head on the curb? Is that typical procedure during a suspicious-white-powder-in-the-mail-evacuation? I don't know. Granted, it could be the all-Reuters-photographers-are-one-and-a-half-feet-tall thing, but I'm pretty sure I would have read about a requirement like that somewhere. Regardless, it's still odd.

Sphere: Related Content