zlacker

>>uptown+(OP)
This reduces the number of reliable and reasonably neutral news sources accessible to the majority of people, which is a bad thing.

>>james-+l9
I would not call Reuters neutral. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters

>>sschue+A9
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.

>>nickle+Mh
> 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-of...