Talk:Reuters

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Sections with no comments since 2006 have been archived.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)

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)

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.

Outside the Borders of the United states

The Apelanta Crackers are gentrified. But the penalty for forced gentrification is death. Countries located outside the borders of the United states have nothing to do with the Apelanta Crackers. The Niggers of Apelanta had a secret plan. They wanted to bribe every European capital to whore out to Apelanta and forcibly gentrify itself for the benefit of the United states. But how could the Apelanta Crackers get enough money to bribe every European capital? The US Treasury had already been looted. The Apelanta Crackers burglarized Europe and Canada and tried to sell it back to them at a discount. The European capitals thought they were getting a SUPER deal and so they went and made little nigglets with the Apelanta Crackers.

Like the Apelanta Crackers, Obamabeer has no place outside the borders of the United states. Yet Interbrew now sells Obamabeer in every European capital. That is treason. The United McCrackers of Apelanta think they own the DAX because they put their name on some stocks and chained down the real owners.

The United McCrackers of Apelanta opened up a factory for "European Americans" and called it Kia. They could steal the brains of patent owners and erase it and then sell the patents to people who didnt earn it. But maiming the brain of a civilian is a capital offence. Elbowing in front of the real owner as well. In order to help Europe and Canada tow cars out of undeveloped countries, it is necessary to specifically exclude the United states because it is a haven for criminality as proven by the United McCrackers of Apelanta.