Talk:Reuters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Recent 'allegations of bias' addition
I'd like to suggest that the recent addition be reviewed (as a new user, I'm a little wary of touching it myself).
Whilst I'm not going to argue that the allegations of bias haven't happened, the 'Wall Street Journal' reference cited is pretty tenuous - the linked op-ed article merely states that the BBC's editorial guidelines on use of the word 'terrorist' is 'Reutervillian', no doubt pejoratively, but not quite a statement of criticism on Reuters' alleged anti-israeli/anti-american bias (the link placed directly after this claim).
Jherad 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's actually not a recent add; sentiments along those lines have been added and removed since January 2004, and the "Allegations of bias" section was added later that year. Considering the heft of the Wall Street Journal and the fact that it isn't the only notable criticizing party, I believe these belong in here, in spite of opponents wanting to sanitize this from the article. However, you're right that someone could work on the links. I chose the link in question because it showed that Reuter's "rule" against calling civilian-killers "terrorists" is not followed consistently. Past links, e.g., http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/2003_Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-.asp, charge Reuters with deception in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by, for example, misstating the goals of Hamas and using deceptive and slanted language against Israel. Clearly the source has an agenda, but anyone who seeks to expose bias - left, right, pro-Western, anti-Western, or otherwise - has one by definition. By the way, critics criticize Reuters more than AP and UPI, and this should probably be stated in the article. (The real root of the difference among the news agencies could be their country of origin, but the difference remains, no matter what its cause.) Calbaer 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Calbaer - as stated, I'm not really arguing against the 'feeling' of the addition, as I am well aware of criticisms levelled at Reuters for their (lack of) use of the 'T' word. Simply an issue with the given link, and its position in the text given what the article actually states. Anyway, as before, I'm not gonna touch this myself - Just thought it might be worth commenting on, as it surprised me a little. The WSJ link was the only one I took issue with - the other being much more meaty and relevent, even if the source is (at least in my opinion) on shakier bias terrority. Which of course doesn't matter in the slightest, as anyone can look that up for themselves! Jherad 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well there's some new concerns about the bias, one of their recent images from Beirut was doctored very heavily; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only which is quite disconcerting about other news they put out. Only a quick look at the image shows repeating patterns in the smoke, which is about as equally likely to happen as seeing God, finding out the meaning of life and then seeing Jesus doing a hula dance on national TV in the next 5 minutes. Also it's been spotted as a doctored image by professional photographers; http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21302 --83.100.151.191 02:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I see there's been some disagreement about who discovered the fake photograph in the article revisions. For the record, I believe it was Johnson. Before anyone removes it again, please provide a source for your belief that it was discovered first elsewhere. Also, while we're on the subject, I believe Johnson is worth mentioning, given the relative notoriety of his blog and his past interaction with Reuters (the death threat) and the effect his work had on during the "Rathergate" affair. I don't particularly like Johnson, but I believe he is significant enough to be worthy of mention in this section. Stephen Aquila 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I am convinced it was Johnson of Little Green Footballs as well. I first saw a link early yesterday to LGF at PajamasMedia.com about this, which seems IMHO to be the most copious source of information on the Lebanon War (the other copious source is the pro-Hezbollah site http://angryarab.blogspot.com). The death threat incident where a Reuters employee wrote "I can't wait to see you blogger pigs get your throats cut" firmly established the meme that the Reuters' cultural atmosphere and the Blogosphere atmosphere are locked in some kind of ideological struggle. Since this article is about Reuters, more attention needs to be paid as to the economic reasons why a public company, especially one with the likes of Rupert Murdoch owning 15%, would bear so hard to the left wing according to the accusations of others. Maybe facts need to be stated regarding where Reuters wants to expand and how Reuters might think that the people in these expansion areas need to see news skewed to their prejudices or average IQ level? Is Reuters perceiving its "readership" to be more the underclass than the more affluent people who can read the Internet blogs? Does Reuters see the Muslim world as a growth market? One can be sure that today's "retraction" in regard to the doctored Beirut cityscape will not be reported on by most of the world's newspaper customers of Reuters, many of which have already printed the doctored photos on their front pages and will never run a correction for their millions of readers. How did Reuters skew their news during World War One and World War Two and Vietnam? There is no such thing as a free press and I doubt Reuters was unbiased for most of its long existence. The article makes it seem that Reuters has only developed a bias problem since 9-11. The Blogosphere and Wikipedia feature tons of businesspeople and those not in the journalistic field, while news services like Reuters tend to employ the type of people who have chosen journalism as a profession. Are there salary expectations as well as ideological and personality differences between a photographer who earns $2,000 per month roaming the third world and a businessman who makes $9,000 per month sitting in a London office building? If the businessman earning $9,000 per month instantly spots image fakery in a Reuters photograph and gets a third world citizen fired via exposure of such fraud...isn't that part of a wider class war where the lower classes gather within the low-paid journalistic field to do battle with the richer businessmen? Another question: has someone strategically decided that this class war will be played out as a "cat and mouse game" where journalists manipulate events via wire services and businesspeople use blogs to catch them? This would be like a proxy war where violence is not allowed outside certain proxy areas like Iraq and Lebanon, but biased words fly everywhere like bombs. Meanwhile, where is mention in the article of the denials by Reuters that much of the Qana incident was staged? Reuters responded to the charges, meaning they are relevant to the article. --EnglishGarden 10:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the May 29th Reuters death threat incident was not "hearsay". Attempts to delete mention of this extremely important development in the history of the Reuters company and its employment policies...would be news in and of itself and we can take this to arbitration. By claiming "hearsay" one is saying that Ed Johnson, Communications Director of Reuters, did NOT suspend an employee for that incident and you are calling a competitor of Reuters a liar whose accusations cannot be proven and are not worth repeating. --EnglishGarden 11:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In terms of general editorial policy: on any subject, controversy must be discussed in Wikipedia articles because it is censorship to leave things out, even when you are convinced that those things are irrelevant or worse: PR lobbying by professional organizations. Here is an example: I checked the article on "Mail Order Bride" and found that a lawyer in Washington DC had added a section describing her view of the three murders of "mail order brides" in the past 15 years in the USA (the DC law firm of Arnold & Porter is doing pro bono work to try to regulate dating websites). Knowing that thousands of American women were murdered by their husbands in the same time period, it should have been clear that the long descriptions of the 3 murders were PR added by an employee of a law firm and did not belong to an article on "mail order brides" anymore than a description of 10,000 domestic American murders belonged in an article on "marriage" or "divorce".
But I did not delete the 3 paragraphs about the 3 "mail order bride murders" because they are "being talked about" ...sensationalized in 2 major lawsuits involving the freedom of Americans to meet foreigners online without governmental interference. I kept them in with only a blurb to provide perspective. The murders are not hearsay. They did happen. The law firm is allowed to spread word about the murders, including manipulation of Wikipedia articles, and it is up to the intelligence of the American public to put these murders into perspective (and to read the history section of every Wikipedia article to see what's been deleted).
The same is true regarding Reuters. The company is under attack regarding bias incidents that the company admits happened. If a Reuters PR agent wants to counter the accusations and/or attack the credibility of Charles Johson...Wikipedia readers will be glad to see more information to help them make better judgments of the world they live in. But deletion is censorship. I don't engage in that. Neither should anyone here.--EnglishGarden 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to contribute too much today, but the issue of the news services featuring photos of the same Lebanese woman losing a different home every week is downright creepy and needs Wikipedia documentation. This particular link below doesn't apply to Reuters, but a little research will probably find that Reuters has featured this woman who apparently keeps building new homes every week in order to have the Israelis bomb them: http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/extreme-makeover-beirut-edition.html. Looks like there will be a Yahoo scandal in the next day or so. Those photos don't lie. Apparently, a massive fraud has been perpetrated by Hezbollah on Yahoo and Reuters in the past month.
I've also researched the possible causes of the "bias problem" and have learned that Reuters is conducting "outsourcing" where they have as few actual employees as possible. In the Middle East, Islamist death threats make it so Reuters stringers must tow the Islamist line or they do not survive and Reuters does not continue to have "access" to "events." Some other editor needs to form a paragraph, preferably an honest Reuters employee who can speak with more authority.--EnglishGarden 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've got a problem with the email to Charles Johnson being called a "death threat." "I hope you die" is different from "I'm going to kill you." In this case, presumably, Johnson's correspondent was somewhere overseas. Additionally there is an element of heresay... I will leave the fact that this email existed in the article, but I am going to call it something other than a "death threat." --AStanhope 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- One must place such things in their context. Given the surprising frequency of throat-slitting as a method of dissent suppression by advocates of a certain ideology (e.g., Mohammed Bouyeri), this could reasonably be characterized as either a wish, a threat, or even a call to action. I think calling it "arguably threatening" is fair.
-
- Furthermore, where's the hearsay problem? No one appears to be denying that the e-mail did, in fact, exist, or that its content was other than Johnson described. Also, this would only be hearsay if we were quoting someone else saying X threatened Johnson. As is, we are quoting Johnson saying that he has been threatened and Reuters saying they took action, a level of source unbeatable except by asking Moira Whittle or Charles Johnson themselves to edit the page (which would be problematic). Stephen Aquila 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keep "allegations of bias" section succinct
Otherwise the whole section will look biased. Instead of repeating or expanding on already included information add references for further reading. 172.213.251.184 20:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- While succinct is always helpful to readers of any medium, shouldn't we examine the broader issue? There are at least two lexically identifiable camps regarding media bias - one uses the term "MSM" or "Main Stream Media" and the other uses the term "Corporate Media." In American politics, these camps are identified with the right and left respectively. Internet searches on either term will yield a great deal of content, most of which does nothing to substantively examine the questions at hand - are leading news media outlets (Reuters among them) biased? Are they "tilting" the news to play to unarticulated preassumptions of readers, leading the reader to conclusions that a mere statement of observations would not lead to? Are they simply ignoring substantive stories because they undermine an agenda of corporate gloablization? These are a fundamental questions affecting Reuters, and Reuters is very much in the thick of the debate.
- Because so many people have an interest in the question of media bias, shouldn't readers looking at Reuters at least get more than a bland morsel of "some allegations have been made?" To my thinking, it is a fundamental question that Reuters tries to deal with - certainly some content here should reflect that, succinct or not. 72.197.224.192 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- EnglishGarden brings up a number of points, but if we want to have a thorough resource of the whens, whats, wheres, hows, and speculative whys of Reuters bias, that should probably have its own page (so that that can be destroyed and/or marked with a POV tag, not this section). For now, a "bland morsel" - to which some very unbland links are attached - isn't a bad start. This section has gotten deleted and recreated so many times that we should constantly be on the watch for POV, so that no reasonable person can be justified in deleting it yet again. On a similar note, one fault with Wikipedia in general seems to be that, because it is new and always updated, recent events get a lot more space than older events. This can be seen in this section, where the events of the last few days dominate the section. This isn't horrible, but perhaps the more recent stuff should be shortened rather than (or in addition to) the older stuff being lengthened. Calbaer 16:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree. At this point, we might want to consider moving much of the information from the most recent incident to its own page, perhaps using the term "Reutergate" (lots of blogs are calling it that, but I'm definitely open to better names if we can come up with one). That would allow us to examine the situation in the same detail, but without cluttering the Reuters page. A simple link and summary would suffice. Stephen Aquila 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
I wouldn't mind someone beefing things up with a World War Two bias paragraph and a Vietnam war bias paragraph, if there are facts to back up the text. All press organizations slant things "their way" and, therefore, important press organizations have become part of (and not neutral to) major transitional periods like wars. World War Two was largely successful within six years because the media overwhelmingly supported the Allies. Most people agree that the results of the Vietnam War were largely shaped by the press and not by battles on the ground (nobody knows why China changed its foreign policy). Reuters has been a very important news shaper and I am not necessarily saying that now, if they are purposefully biased instead of just outsourcing too much, the west will lose a civilizational war as a result. By giving anti-western Muslims the belief that they can "be heard" and "fight and win in a war of words"...the actual level of violence in the "war on terror" could be less than it would have been if the western media ignored their POV, forcing them to find ways, like 9-11, to speak louder. Take for instance, this film about Pallywood: http://youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys. It is almost sweet to see young Palestinian teenage males being told by film directors to shoot into empty buildings so Reuters photogs or the six oclock news in Atlanta would see a brave "intifada" where Israeli troops are supposedly being shot at. It means that, at least in the case of this film expose, the Palestinians were content to play-act in front of western media "stringers" rather than seriously shoot bullets at actual Israeli troops. Similarly, if Hezbollah's main "weapon" in the current war is "the western media" it means that their main weapon is not a nuclear bomb; it means that they might intend to win only a media war. So Reuters might be sacrificing some of its credibility in the west in order to reduce the level of violence overall. Caveat emptor. Educated westerners are expected to read between the lines. --EnglishGarden 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to re-emphasise the original point. Well over 6 months after this talk section was started I think the bias section is still too big. Anyone would think from the size of the section that Reuters neutrality was seriously in doubt on a wide range of issues.
- However, the allegations of bias section centres on just one issue: the Arab-Israeli conflict and especially the 2006 Israeli strikes against Lebanon. In using Adnan Hajj Reuters made a mistake, but I don't think there is any evidence that Reuters conspired with Adnan Hajj. They would have a strong motive (Reuters continued respectability) not to conspire with Adanan Hajj. In any case, it is beyond doubt that Israel did bomb Beirut, and all reports I read at the time agreed that significant damage was done.
- As such I find the article leaves the Adnan Hajj matter (while definitely worth mentioning) overemphasised. Reuters use of Adnan Hajj has been elevated to such a big part of this article that is supposed to be about the whole of Reuters and its history over a century and a half.
- I actually agree with Reuters that militant is a more neutral word than terrorist. There is no reason why a 'militant' should necessarily be a good person, they might be a very bad person. 'Militant' allows a news article to get on with describing the actions of said individual, allowing the reader to make up their own mind on the merits of the individuals actions. I certainly think that construing Reuters refusal to use the term 'terrorist' as evidence of bias is very tenuous. 'Terrorist' can be a loaded word. 'Militant' simply describes how someone is pursuing a cause.
- The Reuters article should not appear over influenced by certain interest groups connected to a story which Reuters has reported on. Please understand that I myself have both considerable geographical and political separation from the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am not at all involved. From that neutral standpoint, I'm afraid that to me the 'Allegations of Bias' section looks like it has been written in Israel. It shouldn't look like it was written from any particular standpoint. The article leaves the reader with the feeling that Reuters neutrality is seriously in question. I've never heard that before. I don't believe it is fair. --83.67.127.181 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Although your concerns are understandable, some of your hypothesis are flat-out wrong. Reuters' bias is more a concern to right-wing Americans than to Israelis (who are used to biased and/or uninformed reporting from the likes of the BBC). "Allegations" implies a standpoint, and any reader should be able to realize that those allegations come from a certain POV, but not one given undue weight. Also, this section was here two years' prior to the Hajj controversy, so to say it's "centered" on the controversy is misleading. However, it might begin with too much on the controversy, so a reorganization could help. Calbaer 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi, thanks for acknowledging my post. There is a strong Jewish/Israeli lobby in America with a lot of influence particularly in the right-wing circles you mention, so yes the allegations could be seen as coming from this perspective too. You make a distinction between right-wing American concern and Israeli concern. Are you saying Americans believe Reuters show a liberal bias on abortion, or perhaps that they are supportive of the trade unions, are soft on immigration, or favour left-wing fiscal policies, bias shown against the US on Iraq? If so, please give examples as this would give some diversification to the section.
-
-
-
- I do not understand your suggestion that Israeli perception of bias in the BBC leads them to be less responsive to bias from Reuters. If one news agency reported on me in a biased way, and then another one joined in I would be more concerned, not less. Israelis may claim they are 'used to bias', but it does not follow that they will cease to protest about it, they don't.
-
-
-
- Agreed, a reorganisation could help. I still feel though that this is a rather long section, considering strong criticism of Reuters really comes only from a limited array of closely allied standpoints. When bias accusations stream in from all quarters, then yeah long section. But when they eminate almost soley from the American right and the Israeli lobby which has strong influence over it, then by repeating these allegations from this POV we are in danger of making the article biased itself. --83.67.127.181 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] March 2007 Changes
Thanks, user Calbaer (talk • contribs) for this excellent edit.
I've just made the "Bias" section a lot smaller by (1) moving material into the new subsections, (2) merging duplicate material and (3) dropping some details which I felt are best placed in the {{seealso}} articles. I also requested sources for two claims, being too lazy just now to go and find sources myself. Please check and correct my changes. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Calbaer (talk • contribs) and Chris Chittleborough (talk • contribs) for these edits. They seem to have taken the section in the right direction. I note however that the section starts by saying that the alleged bias is 'liberal, Anti-Israeli and Anti-American', it goes on 'especially in its Middle East Reporting'. Liberal bias allegations? Nothing here about US domestic issues, or non Israel related foreign ones. I don't see allegations here of a liberal bias (other than the Middle East reporting, but that would be double counting the issue).
- I was interested in the claimed Anti-American bias allegations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54924-2002Sep8 as reference #7 is all there is to back this up. (I am not pointing fingers, I don't know who put this there.) Puzzled, I read down the page to find the claim related to just one caption of one Reuters photograph. No way is this sufficient basis for the section to refer to 'Anti-American' bias. We can't just put any old allegation there's ever been here. It has got to be substantial and serious. I remain unconvinced of substantial Anti-American bias allegations on this showing.
- Malvinas (Falklands). Did Margaret Thatcher or other British ministers complain about this? If so, lets have a link to a quote. Otherwise this is an example of ultra careful reporting and not an allegation of bias.
- The Little Green Footballs matter? A rogue employee who get's suspended is in no way sufficient basis for a wikipedia subsection that is supposed to be exploring allegations of CORPORATE bias. That organisations occassionally contain hotheads who do silly things and get suspended is unremarkable.
- But don't get me wrong. I like the changes, I do think they improve the section. I just still have concerns about the section. --83.67.127.181 12:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks to everyone. I understand your concerns, and they are warranted. Unfortunately, the generalization of the "hothead" argument or the argument that the Washington Post link wasn't substantial would be that Hajj was a "bad apple" or that calling the 7/7 bombings terrorism was an "isolated incident." Incidents can't be waived away due to their uniqueness since every incident is unique. And we're not trying to prove that Reuters is anti-American or extremist, just that it is alleged to be (although more anti-American allegations would help.) Similarly — on the other side — I think that no one took issue with the Falklands reporting (or, if they did, their concern was lost in the mist of time). That's just there to defend Reuters by saying that the use of "neutral terms" preceded the first and second Intifadas.
-
- That said, I've never seen a good defense of the "Reuters has a pro-corporate bias" point of view, which has been in this article since 2005. I believe I might've re-added it with other material for balance, but, when looking for support, I could find no reliable or notable sources. So that {{fact}} can safely be deleted due to its undue weight. (And saying Reuters can't be anti-Semitic or anti-Western because it's bad for business is like saying Ford couldn't be anti-Semitic in the '20s because it's bad for business, or that CBS can't be anti-Republican and pro-Democrat because it's bad for business. Where bias and/or prejudice is involved, people and groups act against their perceived self-interests all the time.)
-
- Finally, good call with the "dust particles" defense; I know of no one who bought that defense or thought that it could possibly be the truth, especially given how other photos were altered. Calbaer 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "More anti-American allegations would help". Not necessarily no. Either much more widespread allegations of anti-American bias SPRING READILY TO MIND, or else mentions of anti-American bias allegations must go.
-
-
-
- Allegations should not be included in Wikipedia which people then struggle to substantiate afterwards. Wikipedia is no place for allegations, UNLESS they are a widely regarded as a significant issue pertaining to the article being written.
-
-
-
- Agreed, incidents can't be waived away on uniqueness, BUT they CAN on lack of significance. Hajj's actions involved reporting on Reuters behalf on a major story - significant, and Reuters published the images as a corporation. On the other hand, the Little Green Footballs thing was not a Reuters corporate action, and involved a special interest blog that I'd never even heard of before reading this article - MUCH less significant.
-
-
-
- You mention anti-semitic. That is a whole 'nother ball park. Don't go there without the evidence.[edit: I think I'm slightly at cross purposes with you here, ignore if you like, but I'm sure you see what I mean].--83.67.127.181 16:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm not confusing anti-Semitic with anti-Israel, since both allegations have been made. But you're right in that it's far easier to find accusations of anti-Israel bias than anti-American or anti-Semitic bias. Still, the criticism is more general than just anti-Israel, so we should be careful not to make it sound like all links point to an anti-Israel bias and only an anti-Israel bias. I guess more work can be done; I'd just be careful not to get rid of any citations, since any controversial section of an article will be targeted on the basis of sourcing and/or notability and/or NPOV. (This section was deleted last April and restored only in June, so the stronger it is made, the better.) By the way, Little Green Footballs is a very well-known and well-regarded website; see, e.g., [1]. It's not a name known by the average English-speaking man-on-the-street, but, then again, neither is Agence France-Presse. Reuters admitted that the message came from them, but did not provide information about what happened to the employee who sent it (past his or her being suspended pending an investigation). I guess in its own subsection, it looks kind of sad, but it fits the alleged pattern of being biased against Israel and its supporters. But a threat isn't quite the same as word choice in an article, so I'm not sure where else to put it. Calbaer 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please excuse my comment edit crossed with your response. My previous comment now reads as I intended. I had removed my remark about anti-semitism before I read your response. I thought my remark over-egged the matter.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Firstly, I would strongly like to draw attention to what I said in my last post (as it now stands) in paragraphs one and two.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Secondly, this LGFs incident doesn't come close to printing pictures with the Reuters name in the corner. However this employee was dealt with in the end (and we do know he was at least suspended) his actions WERE NOT SANCTIONED BY REUTERS. Yeah, he used a Reuters IP to send the message. That does not mean he spoke for Reuters. Any idea that this incident tells us something deeper about Reuters is a suggestion I find too tenuous for inclusion in Wikipedia, it would be speculation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I believe that actually what 'the average man in the street' considers as significant is worthwhile keeping in the back of the mind when writing on Wikipedia. This is an article for those interested in Reuters, not those interested in the right-wing American blogosphere.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Finally, you say that the criticisms are more general than just of anti-Israeli bias. This is my concern, are they really more general? I'm not seeing that true diversity unfortunately. I've had a look at the LGF blog and I would say it is almost gratuitous in its criticism of Muslims and Arabs, and much much more supportive of Israel. So I don't see this as an example of critique variety.--83.67.127.181 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
- Following further debate with Calbaer (talk • contribs) on their own user talk page, I'd like to sum up my concerns.
- I think repeating 'allegations' on Wikipedia needs great care. When I say 'care' I include moderating the space given to these allegations, according to their prominence.
- I don't find that there are any prominent allegations of specifically 'liberal' bias given here. I don't think there are any to give. Some factions in America are very quick to accuse others of a 'liberal' bias, but so what?. I do accept that Israeli supporters may sometimes take issue with Reuters, especially after Adnan Hajj. On 'anti-American' allegations, I'm not convinced. But perhaps what I didn't appreciate was irritation with Reuters' 9/11 coverage in America.
- Terribly sorry, but I don't feel the Little Green Footballs Blog email incident necessarily said anything about Reuters corporate views. We know they said they didn't approve of the email. We don't know much beyond that really.
- If I wrote the 'allegations' section, it wouldn't be called that. I would call it 'The issue of Neutrality at Reuters'. I would mention that they refrain from overt comment and analysis (I think they do?). I would mention their Falklands (Malvinas) wording, then their T-word policy. Then I would introduce concerns that it hadn't been consistently applied, mentioning 9/11 and 7/7 and contrasting the coverage. Then I would add a mention of the Hajj controversy, the damage it had done to perceived neutrality, and Reuters response. I would link to the main 'Reutergate' or Hajj controversy article. And that would be that.
- Following edits in the last few days the section is closer to what I have suggested than it used to be. But the 'allegations' section remains about the same length as the history section of this 150 year old organisation. Is Reuters really that controversial?.--83.67.127.181 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Old 'allegations of bias' section
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reuters&oldid=48076875 is an earlier edition of this will a large 'allegations of bias' section. It was a tad ugly, so User:Afghanets put most of the content into a "Further reading," which was later deleted by User:Zui1 (now blocked). The rest of the controversy section has been periodically removed and readded. With the latest Reuters incident, there'll probably be enough watchdogs to guard this from happening again. And I'll readd "Further reading." Calbaer 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reuters web page
What's with the recently banned user who, among his other bizarre and vandalizing edits, kept changing the Reuters link to its counterpart on "Yahoo!"? This isn't a particularly important question—I'm just idly curious. I mean, some of his edits were blatant vandalism, so he clearly didn't shy away from that. Why bother just altering a link to something almost as valid? It's a serious underachievement as far as vandalism goes. Stephen Aquila 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Allegations section
I removed the first section, since the second section expanded and explained it. kc12286 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- That was 72.75.73.18 — I should've just reverted his rewrite instead of fixing it, since obviously I didn't fix everything. Calbaer 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More allegations of bias
I have found an allegation of media bias against Reuters, I guess if the other is "liberal bias" then this would be "conservative bias", although I don't think either term is accurate. I can't read Spanish, so I have no idea how legitimate the claims are, but the screenshots are quite clear in what the description is suggesting. It's interesting and very relevant to me because it's very similar to the fraudulent photos that came from Lebanon. Perhaps evidence of poor journalism, counter to bias. Ajzzz 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
Please forgive my American imperialism in adding an ɹ to the IPA pronunciation of Reuters. The rationale was that Americans can include it and everyone else will ignore it as usual because of its position in the word. Its absence though makes it look as if Americans wouldn't pronounce it at all, but we do. If there's a better way to make that point in the pronunciation guide, I'm all for it. -- ke4roh 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Forgive my inability to read pronunciation guides, but in plain english, is it pronounced [royders]? Or pretty much like that? → JARED (t) 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much, though standard English would write the central consonant as /t/, whether it's pronounced /t/, flapped as /d/ or (how I'd pronounce it) /?/. EdC 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reuters player.
You can watch all the Reuters news on your Google homepage. An AJAX based Retuers player is available here -
http://padmanijain.googlepages.com/myexperiments.html
Same player is also available as Google gadget.
[edit] Company organisation
I was looking for something about the company's structure but couldn't really find anything in the article. I found some figures from themselves for the end of 2005 and was wondering where to put them? Does it deserve a new section? Anyway, here's the info I'd like to add.
Reuters consists of four business divisions: Sales & Trading (66% of the company's revenue at the end of 2005), Research & Asset Management (11%), Enterprise (16%), and Media (7%) [2]. Sparky132 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
