4 ms·

This reduces the number of reliable and reasonably neutral news sources accessible to the majority of people, which is a bad thing.

sschueller 6y ago
I would not call Reuters neutral. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters
- wyldfire 6y ago
  Gee, I'd always considered Reuters and AP to be as close to neutral press as there is. Who is neutral if not Reuters?
  - seneca 6y ago
    I think they are about as neutral as you will find. The wider environment has just become hyper partisan. It has certainly influenced both organizations (which I read daily), and I would agree they're not as neutral as they were once lauded to be, but I don't know that you'll find a better option. Checking out allsides.com, and their bias ratings, is a good way to see just how bad the other options are.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    Reuters is quite neutral. Which means the right thinks Reuters is left.
    - krapp 6y ago
      The right thinks every media outlet but Fox News is somewhere to the left of Pravda, and sometimes they have their doubts about Fox.
- spicymaki 6y ago
  As far as I can tell it is 'reasonably' neutral. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters Hopefully the addition of a paywall does not skew things.
- nicklecompte 6y ago
  The “controversies” section in the Wikipedia article doesn’t point to any coherent bias in Reuters or deliberate organization-wide ideological judgments. I am really not sure what you are trying to say other than “one of the largest news agencies in the world has made mistakes” which... ok? It is true that Reuters tends to hew towards US-centric conventional politics and sometimes has problems with politically-biased reporters and editors. This is endemic to any news organization run by Americans, and similar issues will arise in any non-partisan news agency. Reuters is only “non-neutral” in the sense that any news organization will have some ideological baggage and some viewpoint. It is useful to keep this in mind when reading any particular story, since any journalist is capable of bias and any story should be read critically. It is not useful to pretend that this human imperfection is somehow a problem with Reuters. It seems like an unfair (and dangerous) way to discredit legitimate journalism.
  - FqOD4xih7Uq6m9Z 6y ago
    > Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...

sschueller 6y ago

I would not call Reuters neutral. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters

wyldfire 6y ago
Gee, I'd always considered Reuters and AP to be as close to neutral press as there is. Who is neutral if not Reuters?
- seneca 6y ago
  I think they are about as neutral as you will find. The wider environment has just become hyper partisan. It has certainly influenced both organizations (which I read daily), and I would agree they're not as neutral as they were once lauded to be, but I don't know that you'll find a better option. Checking out allsides.com, and their bias ratings, is a good way to see just how bad the other options are.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  Reuters is quite neutral. Which means the right thinks Reuters is left.
  - krapp 6y ago
    The right thinks every media outlet but Fox News is somewhere to the left of Pravda, and sometimes they have their doubts about Fox.
spicymaki 6y ago
As far as I can tell it is 'reasonably' neutral. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters Hopefully the addition of a paywall does not skew things.
nicklecompte 6y ago
The “controversies” section in the Wikipedia article doesn’t point to any coherent bias in Reuters or deliberate organization-wide ideological judgments. I am really not sure what you are trying to say other than “one of the largest news agencies in the world has made mistakes” which... ok? It is true that Reuters tends to hew towards US-centric conventional politics and sometimes has problems with politically-biased reporters and editors. This is endemic to any news organization run by Americans, and similar issues will arise in any non-partisan news agency. Reuters is only “non-neutral” in the sense that any news organization will have some ideological baggage and some viewpoint. It is useful to keep this in mind when reading any particular story, since any journalist is capable of bias and any story should be read critically. It is not useful to pretend that this human imperfection is somehow a problem with Reuters. It seems like an unfair (and dangerous) way to discredit legitimate journalism.
- FqOD4xih7Uq6m9Z 6y ago
  > Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...