5 ms·

Reuter's isn't a very reliable source of information given they fell for another Sam Hyde hoax Feb 28th, and it's still up.. /s Hyde https://www.reuters.com/w

• planck01 5y ago
  As in: an organization who makes a mistake once is unreliable for everything they say no matter how trustworthy everything else they put out is? And the alternative is what? Something like: let's start believing random facebook posts, or some other systematic biased site?
  • programmarchy 5y ago
    Reuters is obviously systematically biased toward the consensus of Western elites.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• fortuna86 5y ago
  That link is dead for me.
  • filoleg 5y ago
    Try different browser or a VPN. I just checked, and it was alive for me.
• filoleg 5y ago
  I know that some important journalist/publication fell for the Sam Hyde hoax a couple of days ago, and I've seen the original tweet, but the hoax part of it wasn't in the article you linked, so imo it is a bad example. The article just talks about foreigners enlisting to assist Ukrainian military, and it lists a few personal stories of those. The only potential reference to Sam Hyde is this sentence: "Hyde, a 28-year-old from the U.S. Midwest, said he was already in Kyiv and expected to start military training on Tuesday." This is a wild stretch to use this as an example of Reuters being hoaxed in this article. For all we know, it could have been a different person with the last name Hyde, it isn't exactly uncommon. There are no references in the article to the details that could definitely identify it with the Sam Hyde hoax that we saw on Twitter.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]