Reuters is a news agency headquartered in London, but they report on news around the globe. Often other news just recite Reuters news instead of traveling the world themself. How trustworthy and unbiased you think they are?
If it’s mainstream, it’s likely Christofascist, no matter what part of the left/right spectrum. My producer and I obviously had stopped trusting mainstream sources for personal reasons.
It’s worth reading, because it’s very factual, as in, they don’t inject any particular viewpoint or opinion into the writing, unlike some other outlets. Whether or not they chose to report on certain events over others due to bias, I do not know.
I remember them being wrong one time point though, because they reported on something chaotic that had just happened or was still happening where details were unclear.
In general, their articles will try to present actual facts that are verifiable, however they will often put spin on the reporting that can create a very skewed impression of the situation. The war in Ukraine is a good example, because if you only followed Reuters reporting then you would’ve had the impression that Ukraine had a good chance of winning the conflict. For the most part, they crafted this narrative without any outright lying. Instead they used tactics like selective reporting, skewing importance of the events to make certain ones seem more important while downplaying importance of others. For example, coverage of western weapons deliveries was hyped up along with Ukrainian strikes into Russian territory. Meanwhile, Russian captures of strategic cities like Bakhmut was dismissed as not having much relevance. Furthermore, Reuters, covers the conflict as if it was about capturing territory as opposed to attritional warfare making the reader think that it’s in a some sort of a stalemate just because front lines aren’t shifting dramatically.
mmm…unconscious nonsense…that hits the spot. Its like coffee for the soul!
I treat them Like any other new source. I read dozens of sources day, never rely on a single one.
if they’re mostly global north originated; then you’re likely getting your news using the same spins.
Fun fact, this is due to the Coriolis effect!
it spins to the right in most of the global north, so this fact is verified. lol
Less than AP. Way more than Fox.
Since they generally report in a shorter format, they tend to not provide much context.
On the one hand, one could say this tends towards less bias, but on the other, context is absolutely critical to assessing a situation.
I think they have their place in the news cycle, and they are a useful source. I think that if they report an event you can be confident it has occurred, BUT they are very, very good at putting spin in only a few words, e.g. “murdered” vs “killed”. They also leave out extremely important context when it doesn’t fit their narrative/bias/click farming.
I am extremely critical of Reuters. But if they are one source amongst many they are useful. Particularly if you look at local news sources or other Reuters news snippets for context around the event.
They deliberately choose “killed” over “murdered” not because of spin, but becauss “killed” is value neutral, and “murder” requires malice of forethought.
Sometimes yes, sometimes it is correct to use murder.
But I was just using it as well known an example of how even a short sentence can have implicit bias while appearing to be simply factual. Not referring to anything specific.
Sometimes using killed is the most factual, sometimes it isn’t. Saying someone died is often factual as well. It’s really dependent on context what word to choose and they can create a very different narrative.
It also can simply be passive versus active voice in sentence structure.
There was an interesting case where Reuters headline was about police in South Africa killed protesting miners. They had a headline video that showed the police opening fire and an officer getting them to stop shooting. And a second “uncut” video on their RSS feed that wasn’t published in any headline that showed the miners were actually a giant mob carrying machetes, sticks, clubs and a few had guns which were fired into the air. The mob started charging the police line and when they opened fire the mob scattered. There was no mention of the police officer that had been beaten to death in the same area the night before by the protesters.
Both were completely factual reports, but they lacked context, and were subsequently widely used to demonise the police.
(Now, don’t get me wrong, cops are usually at fault, and the wider situation of why did those miners need to protest etc is a different topic. But in that specific instance there was a lot of context missing to the individual actions)
No.
They are a British government and intelligence cut-out. That doesn’t mean they always lie but they skew coverage, are manipulative, dishonest, and serve the interests of the British state. They’ve been that way for decades, receiving funding in the 1960s and 1970s from MI6.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/
A series of official documents declassified in January 2020 revealed that Reuters was secretly funded by the British government throughout the 1960s and 1970s to assist an anti-Soviet propaganda organization run by the MI6 intelligence agency. The UK government used the BBC as a pass-through to conceal payments to the news group.
In the modern era they still target Russia under the direction and funding of the UK government. One cannot be in bed with spies like these and hope to hold them and their friends like the US, EU, etc to account.
The fourth estate in general in the west is highly compromised. Russia and China and many others openly fund state media and the west decries it as propaganda, but they never hide it. Whereas the west secretly funds, manipulates, and controls supposedly independent press and declares itself the free one while it lies to the rest of the world and their own populations.
As a wire agency Reuters does tend to have less room for deception than say Fox News due to a lot of short form news breaks. So in that regard they’re more trustworthy than say CNN or Fox News but that doesn’t mean a lot.
Do you have any evidence they continue to be funded and directed by the British government? They were literally partnered with TASS until 2022…
Read the linked source FFS.
Me: Provides evidence that in decades past last century they were paid for and did dirty work of British intelligence, at no point were the people responsible cast out, at no point was this influence purged and processes and organs put in place to prevent this
Me: Also provides evidence they are in the bag as of the twenty-teens they were doing propaganda work for the British against Russia in coordination with the British state through cutouts
You: um acktually do you have any proof they’re still doing that this month? No? Checkmate.
Yeah it’s called a pattern of behavior. Why would they change? What would cause this? Sudden secret come to Jesus moment that fits your idealistic wants and needs in this particular argument? The burden of proof is on YOU and on THEM to show a sustained pattern of change. More than to show that but to admit, call out, and have a reckoning about their past behavior, bring it to the front, make everyone aware of it, apologize, and explain how they’re changing and what they’re specifically doing to prove this isn’t happening.
Partnering with Tass in what way? As wire agencies? Carrying some of their stories? That’s proof of nothing. You think because some org that’s deep in with the intelligence apparatus of one state has some casual or professional cover level contact with a state media organ of a rival state that is proof of what? Impartiality? That they’re actually Russian spies using British intelligence?
What I linked claims they agreed to use journalistic contacts within Russia to influence Russians and others within the CIS sphere for the interests and goals of the UK. If I was doing that I’d want contacts like that including contracts to carry out that work and legitimize my stories to my targets. I’d want to pretend to be friendly, professional and open while carrying out this work.
The new leaks illustrate in alarming detail how Reuters and the BBC – two of the largest and most distinguished news organizations in the world – attempted to answer the British foreign ministry’s call for help in improving its “ability to respond and to promote our message across Russia,” and to “counter the Russian government’s narrative.” Among the UK FCO’s stated goals, according to the director of the CDMD, was to “weaken the Russian State’s influence on its near neighbours.”
Reuters and the BBC solicited multimillion-dollar contracts to advance the British state’s interventionist aims, promising to cultivate Russian journalists through FCO-funded tours and training sessions, establish influence networks in and around Russia, and promote pro-NATO narratives in Russian-speaking regions.
In several proposals to the British Foreign Office, Reuters boasted of a global influence network of 15,000 journalists and staff, including 400 inside Russia.
So your claim that they are still funded and influenced by the British government is completely unsubstantiated got it.
i trust them less that AP but more than most other for profit news platforms. I appreciate that they are fact based and not much “spin” and analysis.
They are my primary news source. I think they are extremely trustworthy and overall pretty unbiased. I sense a sort of contempt towards Donald Trump that bleeds through even in their very dry reporting style. I appreciate how non-sensationalized their stories are.
I think Trump’s actions have a particular non-humanitarian flavour to them that makes even basic facts about his actions have a narrative to them.
They’re consistently rated as one of the most trustworthy news sources, so I trust them more than most news organisations
I trust them to generally do their due diligence and report the truth. As with all press agencies, there will be exceptions to this and instances where journalists spread false information. In those instances, I expect them to correct their errors, which I believe they usually do. There will also always be some level of bias with any journalism, at the very least in choosing what to report on and what not to.
No
No
Yes
