Talk:Reuters

Senate Denies General Officer Promotion

Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up? Hi— I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up). I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years). If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks. Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: +49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this: 011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news. Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be.

Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to: If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:

• Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
• Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
• An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
• I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.

I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news. -- The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the encyclopedia page ? oldrider (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

do they have a print publication? are they only online? what do they sell? what is their website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.244.2 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

on the French wikipedia page, it says the man who created Reuters had worked for the Havas Agency in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.194.121 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to contradict itself -- it says that Reuters has a constitution that doesn't allow anyone to control over 15% of the company, but more recently it says Thompson bought a huge stake in Reuters. Which is it? Did Reuters change its policy? Was its constitution invalidated now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.31.117 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Sections with no comments since 2006 have been archived. Kyle Cronan 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Journalist List in article Biased

The list of journalists who died covering the news were, except for one, all killed by the American military and Israeli military. I realize that the Iraq conflict, in particular, was a recent conflict involving a large military and so, is more likely to have more recently killed journalist, however, there are newer deaths due to the killing involved in the Syrian civil war and the ISIS conflict in Iraq that do not involve the U.S. military or Israeli military that are not mentioned in the paragraph of the text. The American military and Israeli military must be particularly cruel for killing journalists so wantonly. They are clearly brutal and oppressive Western powers involved in colonization and neo-colonization who use their military to silence the noble search for the objective truth in which Reuters engages in a daily basis in order to speak truth to power. What cruel and ignoble countries the U.S. and Israel must be to use their military might to kill brown people and then hide their massacres by killing simple, noble, honest, truth seekers like journalist in an intentional effort to murder journalists.

Set your damned ideology and agenda aside and discuss the death of journalists in a balanced manner, not in a way that focuses on militaries and countries you find distasteful and want to make look bad. Try to balance the discussion out a bit. Show a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the total number of Reuters journalists killed not a sample clearly skewed to make the point of a left-leaning ideologue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.107.121 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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 globalization? 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)

I've always found Reuters to be biased and ready to ban in the interests of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.5.98 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

No, it certainly is not that controversial. I personally found the section on allegations of bias to be non-NPOV. It reads as quite combatative, not at all like the tone of an encyclopedia article. I have removed the info on Reuters not removing Hajj's pictures from its website, as they eventually got around to it. I thought the section on the email incident had no place. At best, it is a poorly sourced account of the bias of one Reuters employee. I was going to delete it, but then I saw that there has been a lot of discussion here. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do so. Kyle Cronan 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section about the incident regarding the email to Little Green Footballs. Calbaer, I also reverted a small addition you recently made. I'm afraid I disagree with you that it is notable that Reuters had Hajj's pictures still accessible on their website months after they said they would remove them from their archive. It must have been a simple oversight, as I'm sure they were quite embarassed at having published such an obvious forgery, and would not intentionally try to attract further attention to the photos. Kyle Cronan 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

---

I was reading an article on the merger between Reuters and Thompson Financial which mentioned the "Trustees" of Reuters. If a page on Reuters will continue to exist post-merger, then I think more information on the organization of the company is in order.

Biased ?

The article about Reuters begins by stating that the news service of Reuters accounts for only 10 percent of their income. Other business divisions are thus much more important. Yet the article uses really a lot of space on covering the allegations of having a biased news service. Using that much space on something that peripheral in the big picture seems biased, if anything.

All news services are from time to time accused of being biased. The allegations are only interesting because of the context: Reuters (and this is quite unique among news organizations) claims to be totally unbiased, impartial and free from commercial interests on a world-wide scale. It only because of this claim that the allegations are interesting. Similar allegations made against another media would not attract same attention. I'm not familiar with the history of Reuters but I bet that such allegations have always existed. I remember reading elsewhere that Hitler during World War II regarded Reuters as a source of information that he could use in his warfare and sometimes could give better information than his own generals.

I'm not arguing that the allegations should not be mentioned in the article, just that the context must be right and that the amount of space used on that must somehow reflect its importance.

I think most people would agree that out of the larger news corporations of this world Reuters is still the one with the best reputation for being non-biased and impartial in any conflict - if you do a random survey on the world's population, not just westerners. Therefore the article gives the wrong overall impression when reading it.

Coming back to the 90% I would like to know more about those activities of Reuters.

TeddyCanoby 07:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Halliburton and the NYSE, Kellogg-Brown & Root is less than 10% of the market cap of Halliburton, yet the Halliburton article is almost all about KBR, way more than Reuters is about the news organization. Is this wrong? Or is it just that KBR (especially its activities in Asia) is the most notable and public part of Halliburton, just as news reporting is the most notable, public, and controversial part of Reuters? I know other articles aren't definitive evidence of what's right and wrong on Wikipedia, but I think the example might be illustrative.

Calbaer 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer, I got your point but I'm not so much objecting to using a lot of space on describing Reuters as a news organization, I'm objecting to using a lot of space on the bias allegations - more so if they are not put into the context where they belong, as described above.

TeddyCanoby 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PICTURES

The leading picture of a company should clearly be of either the (global) HQ or of a location of particular interest. Since the New York building does not fall under any of these categories as it's the North American HQ, it should be placed below and replaced by the Global HQ in London! In terms of presentatin there is no size/quality problems with this picture.. and as there is another view of the NY building below it may be beneficial for it to be placed there. Sumit Desai 09:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fadel Shana

Just question... Was Fadel Shana also involved in an alleged Israeli airstrike on an ambulance in 2006? Im talking about this column I found while googling his name after news mention of his death. http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/04/fauxtography-ambulance-chasers/ http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/09/03/steyn-exposes-more-middle-east-fauxtography-plus-is-the-bbc-further-slanting-non-english-news/

Im just wondering if it was. I only vaguely remember this being mentioned in the news more than a year ago, so I want a second opinion.76.10.171.165 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reuters foto

• It is not enough information on a fake of the facts at photographing.--Shift register (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Primarily historic?

The hatnote says, "This article is primarily about Reuters prior to its 2008 merger with Thomson. For its new parent company, see Thomson Reuters." That's quite a hedge. This article should either be merged into the latter, or this article should exclusively be about the historical company. Superm401 - Talk 10:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mideast Conflict

I would like to clarify my earlier comment as merely seeking better documentation on Reuters' policies and positions on the Mideast Conflict, that is all. ADM (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Present tense vs past tense

Could someone please edit this article so that the tenses are consistent? ("is" and "was" in the same sentence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See Also

I suggest this section to be scrapped. This list would be too long to be comprehensive and would duplicate with the categories at the end of the article, one of which being precisely dedicated to Reuters. Bmathis (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Journalists

I do not see the point of what is written here, and all the more for fatalities. Is it demonstrated that Reuters has been historically more hit by journalist fatalities than other media? Such a paragraph could be justified with a sociological orientation. Is there a strong culture or loyalty of journalists towards the agency? Bmathis (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Versus AP

Some info comparing the relative influence/market share of the two would be handy. --Belg4mit (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Article split

I propose that this article now be split into two: (i) an article about the Reuters news agency, both as a part of Reuters Group and now as a part of Thomson Reuters; and (ii) an article about Reuters Group prior to its merger with Thomson.

The news agency was the historic original business of Reuters Group but by the time of the merger represented less than 10 per cent of Group revenues, and the Group was primarily a financial markets information provider. Whilst the news agency continues to exist as a division of Thomson Reuters, the Group has now been fully subsumed into Thomson Reuters. An article split seems to be the neatest way of dealing with these issues. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is prior the merger and there is an article on Thomson Reuters.Bmathis (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently this article is about the Reuters news agency, both pre and post the Thomson Reuters transaction, and the Reuters Group pre the transaction.

Bias in I/P conflict

New academic research[3] concludes there is a bias in Reuters reporting in I/P conflict.I want to add a following : Most of the Reuters reports is biased against Israel as it systematically used appeal to poverty atrocity propaganda and appeal to pity fallacies to show Palestinians in more positive way --Shrike (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As there were no response in the talk I am adding this.--Shrike (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Could just be because no one has heard of the "The Clute Institute" that runs this journal. Is it actually a reliable source at all or do you just submit a paper with a submission fee  ? Fromthehill (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand its academic journal.Do you have some proof otherwise.--Shrike (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The journal have peer review process [[4]] anyhow the text is attributed so I think there aren't should be any problem with that --Shrike (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Correlation" the Journal of astrological research also has a peer review process but would that be relevant to astrophysics articles ?. Hell, here is the Homoeopathy peer reviewed Journal by Elsevier (and we've actually heard of them). It isn't that the text is attributed but that it is actually relevant at all to this topic. Given the vast numbers of news stories generated by Reuters over the years and the hundreds of correspondents this tiny selection seem selected with an expectation of what the outcome will be. The paper goes on about how to define propaganda but fails to select other news outlets or even other news stories to see how Reuters compares. Its a bit like publishing a report of ONLY Ford car failures and then saying, "Gee look Ford cars fail". Sounds like a biased methodology from some journal we know little of. Fromthehill (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have some doubt I think you should use WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have my doubts so I have removed the text. The paper reads like nonsense. If you want it back then you need to argue it is reliable source and relevant because it is you that want to add the text. The onus is on the editor that wants it in to do the leg work.Fromthehill (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already proved that its reliable source from academic journal written by academic that meets WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you understand what the word "proved" means here - a bunch of redlinks has all the verisimilitude of a self published source and you have done nothing to establish it is a reliable source in this field but have simply reverted the edits without establishing a consensus. I have tagged it rs and will move debate to WP:RSN. Fromthehill (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The author of the paper is Henry I. Silverman from the Walter E. Heller College of Business Administration. He is Assistant Professor of Finance. It is probably wise to take the source to RSN to try to establish whether he is qualified to carry out an qualitative/quantitative content analysis and interpret the results given that it is not his field of expertise. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The study itself was reported by other WP:RS [5],[6],[7]--Shrike (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a kind of herding behavior. If it had been a content analysis of business news/blogs to show the relationship between financial market movements and the language in the sources it probably wouldn't have been reported. I don't know whether the source is reliable, but if an Assistant Professor of Finance wrote a paper that involved the use of a seismic imaging technique, something that is simpler and more deterministic than content analysis in many ways, I personally wouldn't regard it as a reliable source because it is just not his field. I think it's a good example of where RSN could be very helpful. It's worth taking there just out of interest to see what people say about its reliability and the ways it could be used. It's quite an interesting example. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The website for the Journal [8] makes it clear that those submitting papers must pay for publication of their material. I'm not sure if this makes it a self published source. As a general point, relying on mainstream press coverage of scientific research is problematic. Numerous dubious research, that in practice is little more than PR ends up in the press, when the research is genuine the press often misreport the findings or conclusions. Dlv999 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Could please state how you last statement based on policy?Becouse we report what WP:RS says.If they reported this research then its notable and should be included in the article.--Shrike (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this so probably best to take it to RSN. I recently read some very interesting press reports about the Solutrean hypothesis in some very highly respected mainstream media. When I went to add the information to the page it turned out that the reporting in the media was very far off the mark. What the media had reported as a credible theory was actually considered fringe by academics and the scholarly research published in that field. I also know that mainstream news media reports on medicinal research is often well off the mark, and would be inappropriate to add to relevant articles, were the peer reviewed journals and literature in that field should be consulted. The problem with this research is that the research does not appear to have been published in a journal that is likely to be read by academics in the relevant field, so it is not clear that the peer review process is particularly valid in this instance. I think the key point is that the requirements for an RS for scientific research are different to those for more general information - the publications you have cited would simply not have the expertise to asses the quality of the research or the validity of the conclusions. Dlv999 (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If the original paper doesn't qualify as an RS for this kind of analysis then everything derived from it won't qualify as reliable either. We don't include creationist pseudoscience in articles about scientific topics just because sympathetic secondary sources in the media report it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that the sympatetic.They are WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do I have any proof that they are sympathetic ? No, ironically because I'm not qualified to carry out the kind of content analysis that would produce a reliable conclusion. If you mean did I read the secondary source articles and do I have a personal opinion about them that doesn't matter in the slightest, then yes. The JC reports it neutrally, the others are typical worthless propaganda pieces, and none of them are qualified to report on content analysis. Let me ask you a question. Do you want to know whether the information in the journal article is reliable or not ? If the answer is yes, I think you should take it to RSN. It's the right thing to do. Given that a) supporters of either belligerent in the Israel-Palestine conflict regularly write op-eds that are published in mainstream papers and b) they make all sorts of unscientific, inaccurate and often irrational statements in those articles that are probably orders of magnitude less reliable than this journal article, which advocates here are apparently allowed by policy to dutifully copy into Wikipedia to make their side look better or the other side look worse, I would be amazed if taking it to RSN prevented it from being used here in some way. Adding information that could be questionable or unreliable to an encyclopedia isn't something I support. It happens everyday in the topic area but I think this journal article is interesting enough to take to RSN to get the community's feedback on whether and how it could be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading the paper, the author complains about Reuters use of the word "West Bank" as the "acknowledged Israeli-Judeo name for the disputed territory is Judea and Samaria". And the Gaza flotilla was apparently trying to "break the Israeli weapons blockade of the Gaza Strip". --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be possible to use this source with attribution. Questioning its neutrality is a red herring and original research, and standard RS policy should apply in this case.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would expect a discussion at RSN to conclude that a statement of some kind with attribution could be used but there's no such thing as standard RS policy. How the source and statements derived from the source can be used depends on the reliability of the source for those statements. Is there anyone here who knows whether the source qualifies as a reliable study of bias in Reuters ? If so, why not make the case at RSN ? The reliability of a source is decided by community consensus when things are unclear and Frederico1234 is a member of that community so it isn't OR. It's what we are supposed to do. He presented information which I assume leads him to be concerned that the source is questionable. That's okay but this discussion is better had at RSN so that experienced uninvolved editors can comment. That's what it's for. It's perfect for a case like this where the writer is working outside of their field of expertise, the publisher requires payment to publish the work and the result could arguably cast a large organization in a bad light. Those are obvious red flags. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct to identify the perils of using marginal sources in an undue manner, and I am well aware of the 'source selection scuffles' in many I-P topics. That being said, it is original research to postulate that a source is biased based on personal analysis, and this is a diversionary aspect of the discussion. We are not scrutinising its views, we are examining the source's worthiness to state those views.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but not much. If a source says that the planet is 6000 years old because it was created by a god, my personal analysis of bias is enough to establish that the source is questionable. This case is more complicated but the principal is similar. Evidence of bias can (but often doesn't) make a source questionable and disqualify it for some statements of fact because bias and reliability aren't necessarily independent variables. Having said that, from a practical perspective, it's makes no sense to be allowed to include a statement from an op-ed that says "X thinks Y is biased against Z" (based on a personal opinion) and not be allowed to include a statement from a secondary source that says "X carried out an analysis that he thinks shows that Y is biased against Z". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sean, I disagree with your last comment. Opinions are one thing, scientific research is another. People give a lot more weight to the results of scientific research than they do to opinions. If this is bona fida research it should be included, if it is agenda driven pseudoscience it should not. I have no idea which it is, but there is enough doubt in my mind from what has been raised above to make me want to get a second look from RSN. Dlv999 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree but that's why I tried to phrase it quite weakly as "X carried out an analysis that he thinks shows that Y is biased against Z". If the article meets the reliability criteria for scientific research we would be able to it say, as a matter of fact, that a particular kind of analysis showed that there was bias without any attribution and handle it the same way we routinely handle research findings. I doubt that is the case here given the red flags. I'm very conscious of the difference between good science and bad science, I've certainly been been indoctrinated to have a strong bias when it comes to research, so I'm trying to limit my comments about the article here (because it's tempting to be very critical) and encourage taking it to RSN so that others who are perhaps more tolerant than me can comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I must expand upon "bias and reliability aren't necessarily independent variables". These are certainly distinct and must not be conflated to support the circular argument that is occasionally put forth: The views are biased and are therefore unreliable, therefore the source is unreliable, therefore its views are unreliable. While bias is indicative of an unacademic work lacking in scholarly overview, it is is not intrinsically invalidating and is a correlational feature. It was for that reason that I suggested that focusing on the presence of possible bias is diversionary; asides from being OR, it does not causally affect reliability.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Beall site (that questions the Clute Publications) is pretty accurate at pegging bogus journals. According to http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full, some 82% of the journals he calls out have been caught accepting papers just for the money. I'd say the Silverman reference does not belong here.Mcdruid (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Copyvio by Special:Contributions/Gokusiya

Just needed to add this quickly. User Special:Contributions/Gokusiya had copied text in another article and I checked their edit history and saw they had copied britannica.com here text with their edit here. I can't quickly unwind that due to intermediate edits. Fromthehill (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of bias:

Some links are questionable ie)using blogs . Please find unbiased links or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.136.209 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't just simple cite a blog like littlegreenfootballs.com and get away. comment added by 78.148.136.209 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.237.138 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Controversies about crediting other media / Retaliation against smaller media"

This section was basically a soapbox for Inner City Press. While it was sourced, sources to primary sources are discouraged and it smells of synthesis. There's nothing here which indicates that this is a controversy large enough to mention about the overall organisation. LFaraone 19:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Reuters Exposed: Publication Openly Hostile To Climate Coverage, Top Editor Doubts Climate Science"

A story on thinkprogress.org about a journalist at reuters who had to fight climate sceptics up the ladder: "Reuters Exposed: Publication Openly Hostile To Climate Coverage, Top Editor Doubts Climate Science" --37.201.227.158 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reuters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://about.reuters.com/statement3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Inordinate coverage of news operations

Reuters is actually a market data services firm, which provides high speed equity, bond, option, forex, and other financial data to banks and investment firms. It's actually where Reuters makes most of its money. Only from a purely external and layperson perspective is it a news agency. It is that, but that is far from it's core business. Like Bloomberg, the news angle started as a value-add to their stock market data customers, and they realized it would be marketable to news outlets as well. Reuters data terminals and services are in a league with Bloomberg, Bridge, and Dow Jones. But there's zero mention of that here. JP Reuter's original service was stock market ticker delivery -- the old Reuters logo was specifically designed to resemble the printing style of antique stock ticker machines. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad Link

Under "Further reading", the link http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007660 for "Criticism of references to the Holocaust" is for a page that is not relevant to that subject. Instead, it is to the current day's Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. DERoss (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC) DERoss 12 June 2017

Removed some angry BTS fan’s rant

There was some weird section about some recent bad reporting on BTS (the k-pop band) so I deleted it. It may be worth adding back somewhere to the article, but it was pretty low quality. 75.84.10.106 (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of TASS partnership

I added an edit in the 21st century section about Reuters partnership with TASS, the state-owned Russian news agency. The edit is factually backed by both proponents themselves, TASS and Reuters. I referenced Reuters website's own article in sources. This edit was deleted straight by User:Mellk, not following due process on deletions on Talk, with no justifications whatsoever.

The edit was: "In June 2020, Reuters announced TASS, the largest state-owned Russian news agency had become a partner on Reuters Connect. "

Thank you for reinstating this simple edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheislaurence (talk • contribs)

Because you are not meeting WP:V. You used this tweet by Reuters to state: The coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is sparking further concern about Reuters impartiality, for example when it uses headlines such as "Ukraine accused Russia of bombing a children’s' hospital in the besieged port of Mariupol during a supposed ceasefire". This does not follow policy, so I suggest to follow WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

At a quick glance, Reuters Connect has 84 different news partners: https://www.reutersagency.com/en/partners/ (which also includes, at a glance, Turkish, British, and Chinese state-owned publications). If there was a secondary source commenting on the relevance of the TASS partnership over the 83 others I could understand why you would want to include it, but the existence of the partnership on its own is not really meaningful or relevant. I also concur with Mellk that adding your own opinions and commentary about Reuters without sourcing—your commentary on the purported impartiality of a headline sourced only to that headline itself on Twitter—is rather inappropriate. Endwise (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Mellk is purposedly not having a discussion about the same edit. Given the TASS/Reuters partnership is a sourced fact, verifiable on Reuters' own website, it entirely meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability Sheislaurence (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement that "the existence of the partnership on its own is not really meaningful or relevant" is an unsubstantiated opinion. Relevance is based on coverage, wide engagement and industry engagement. This partnership meets all criteria. TASS is currently the subject of increasing sanctions, very much for the reason it "severely violates basic journalistic standards".. Getty Images severed its relationship with TASS because it violates its editorial policy, and Polish news agency PAP has called for the expulsion of TASS from the European Alliance of News Agencies. No such activity has taken place around other state-owned news agencies, which is why this partnership is very different and significant. Sheislaurence (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources you've presented are discussing TASS being 1 of the 84 Reuters Connect partners or the relevance of that, they are just discussing TASS itself and nothing about Reuters. Endwise (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I explained why your edit was troublesome. Like I said and Endwise said, you added your own opinion about a Reuters headline based on a tweet. This is not how to do things. Find an actual RS about their headlines being problematic and cite it, or do not include it. Also the WP:ONUS is on you here. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I had to partially revert again because of addition of OR. A paragraph which consisted of Reuters articles/Twitter citations and using that to write commentary about "increasingly problematic" and "unfiltered" content. I must remind again that this violates WP:NOR, so please stop adding your own commentary and use RS that very clearly support what you write. Mellk (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

HI Melk, straight deleting is not how we collaborate on Wikipedia. How would you suggest to add examples of how the partnership failed to meet Reuters Trust Principles? This is a genuine question. I believe this context is essential to understand the Reuters decision to remove TASS. As for citing Reuters official Twitter account as a reference, I am sure you are aware that newswires do not use fax anymore but use Twitter to break news? Why would an official Twitter account not be a verifiable source?

@DividedFrame may want to contribute. Sheislaurence (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed it because it was completely unsupported by any citations. You cited Reuters articles, yes, but you used those to add your own commentary and opinions. You did not cite any sources that explicitly support the statement "unfiltered TASS content became increasingly problematic" because of "Russian bias" and "straight disinformation". You cited Reuters articles that you thought were problematic and added your opinions. You need to find RS that very clearly state that and cite those, otherwise it does not belong here because of WP:NOR. This is the same problem as with your previous edits and this was explained by not just me. If material goes against WP policies, then it will be removed. I'm not sure how else to get this across. Mellk (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References