Nobody has as yet got to the bottom of how a Hamas sympathiser somehow penetrated the Reuters photo-cropping department last week, the easier to remove all aid-peace-volunteer hands which, unaccountably, contained guns, knives, grenades etc. But they’re a funny lot at Reuters.

Their selection process for moderators, for instance, must involve weeding out all those people who can spot a comment which is just a gnats off-topic. James Saft wrote an excellent column last night about the ridiculous output from the G20, and how everyone from Germany to China is doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. This was the first comment to appear on the thread below his piece:

It’s a compelling request, but rather more at home in the ‘please to note 500,000,000,000 dinars wait you in account send credit card details now’ genre.

The person who writes the morning summary of what happened and why in the Asian markets is also never less than entertaining. The ‘what’ bit is always spot-on, but the why bit has me wondering: are Reuters people out there on the trading floors asking “Why on earth did you just buy Peruvian pipe futures?”or do they just make it up? Judge for yourself using today’s effort:

Now how do they know that? Is poor Ching Sum Bond on the Shanghai exchange really thinking, “If only those deficit surveillance measures were in place in Brussels, I’d feel just so much better about things?” Or is he thinking “I feel like shit, I’m sure it was the curry – if I can just get this trade in quickly there’s a good chance I’ll make it to the loo.”

I think if you were on notice from Reuters, as the morning summary subed you could have a fine old time. For example:

But despite this, Reuters is underestimated as a site. Alex Salmon in particular usually has a useful insight in his pieces, and the navigation is quick and logical. John Kemp’s article on the patchy US recovery was also good, but he too is probably suffering severe deflation this morning in the knowledge that this is the only comment so far: