Talk: Reuters

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

the section saying

"Overall the consensus is that Reuters sticks pretty closely to the Reuters Trust principles supported by the Reuters Foundation shareholding, namely:

that the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;

that Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Reuters has or may have contracts;" from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Reuters&oldid=5045981 version

should be restored unless 65.101.36.19 can give a good reason for removing it

Bias?

Why is half the article focused on "allegations of bias" when it is acknowledged that it is the case "with all media companies" that they are accused of bias?

Furthermore, the three examples given seem very irrelevant, as:

1.- in the first case ("Bush, who avoided combat in Vietnam...") it's not mentioned who made the accusations (and it's not clear to me why the quoted paragraphs would be biased)

2.- why is passage that reads "Reuters?s global head of news, re-inforced a long-standing policy of avoiding the use of emotive terms" supposed to be an example of bias? To me, on the contrary, it appears to be an example of extreme professionalism, which cannot be said of the reactions taken by the vast majority of American media, for example.

3.- the third example is a jewel: "Some supporters of Israel, such as Catholic Exchange and Honest Reporting, felt that Reuters's reporting on the Israel-Palestinian conflict had an unfair bias against Israel.". Why! Of course they will criticise anyone who doesn't show support for a particular cause, that's what political pressure groups are for! I bet this particular group does not criticise Fox News reporting--just take a look at their website

In conclusion, I believe the second half of the article is purely POV and I ask its author to reconsider. My choice would be to have it removed althogether, although I would also find acceptable a short mention to the effect that Reuters is less than popular in right-wing circles, if properly balanced by a mention of their achievements.

In your first example, it may have been me that put in the passage - I quoted it from a James Taranto column (third item), after it had made its rounds in the conservative blogosphere; Taranto, in turn, had quoted it directly from a Reuters article, which is no longer available at the Reuters website. It is biased because there is no evidence that Bush's intent was to avoid combat in Vietnam when he joined the guard; Reuters, however, states it as fact. I believe I cited Taranto when I first added the quote, but someone else has since rearranged it, so I have now added the citation again.

In your second point, that passage is not an example of bias; it is, in fact, Reuters's refutation of bias allegations. If you feel that it is unclear, simply clarify it, rather than making wholesale deletions.

As to your third point: a source's bias is not grounds for its removal from a Wikipedia article. If the organizations' accusations caused enough of a stir, and formed an important enough part of the history of Reuters (which I believe they do - I read about the reports in numerous other media), then they ought to be included in the article. See again, for example, FOX News, where reports by FAIR and PIPA, though they are not by any means unbiased organizations, are nevertheless included in the article. It is notability, not reliability, which is important.

Incidentally, I have reverted your massive deletions. The bias section could certainly use some POV work, but it should not be removed entirely, or reduced to a sentence. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason for condensing the section about bias was that it takes up half the article, in my opinion giving it much more prominence than it deserves. Those accusations are 1.- the fruit of recent events and so likely not to stay relevant for a long time and 2.- as far as I'm aware they were voiced and/or echoed only by U.S. media and organisations, making them even less relevant to the wider audience this article is directed to. btw, I've checked the entries for other news wires and newspapers and in none of them there was a whole section dealing with bias, alleged or otherwise.

Consequently, why should this Bias section not be reduced to a sentence?

The allegations of bias listed at FOX News are also "the fruit of recent events," and even if they will not be relevant in the future, they are relevant now. Regarding your #2: no one but the US is likely to complain of anti-American bias. Of course the offended party is the only one which complains. Republicans do not criticize FOX News - only Democrats and leftists and whatnot - and yet their criticisms are an important enough aspect of the channel to merit a large portion of the article. Rather than trimming the bias section, supposing you expand the section about Reuters's history and the other issues surrounding it (whatever they may be)? That way more relevant information may be included, without the section about bias being trimmed for the sake of making it appear less relevant. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 17:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After having read the article on FOX News, I withdraw my comment.

--Oceanhahn 04:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually as said every media is criticize by other parties. So it is better with a short summary at the "Bias", than in detail. --ThomasK 17:43, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)