3 ms·
When did Reuters get so sensationalistic? I remember years ago when they were the matter-of-fact news agency that other journalists got their info from and buil
by AceJohnny2 7y ago
When did Reuters get so sensationalistic? I remember years ago when they were the matter-of-fact news agency that other journalists got their info from and built their sensational articles around.
From TFA:
> This newest exhibit of the Paris Zoological Park, which goes on display to the public on Saturday, has no mouth, no stomach, no eyes, yet it can detect food and digest it.
> The blob also has almost 720 sexes, can move without legs or wings and heals itself in two minutes if cut in half.
Yeah, it's a slime mo(u)ld, we get it. You don't need to get all carnie shouter about it.
Back to my original question, when did Reuters decide their strategic shift into their own souped-up content?
- malcolmxtucker 7y agoReuters has a 'policy' of neutrality, but they're a for-profit org, and the news started getting more skewed after Thompson bought them. Even before they got all click-baitey, they used to suppress climate change news and feature outright quack climate change deniers. Before they got bought out, the news was just a side product to their market data product. AP is the one that is a straight newswire service, that provides story stubs and fact outlines from around the world, which other journalists then sensationalize. All that being said... This article didn't seem all that sensational. Would you have preferred "Paris Zoological Park Showcases Slime Mould Exhibit"?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- LeoPanthera 7y agoIt's been that way for quite a while - I prefer AP for my "wire" news source. They're relatively unbiased and they have a good iOS app.