Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record. (7/10/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/10/2024)
Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.
Okay after taking another look at the article it’s not even propaganda. The US will let Israel fight Hezbollah with no change in US-Israeli relations. That’s the only possible meaning of “let the conflict play out” here. Their reporting isn’t misleading in any way.
yeah it is, it’s uncritically reporting what the administration is saying, justifying the war even, despite the fact that they obviously control the reins on this mad dog - they could cut off weapons at any time.
The US strategy has not changed despite the headline, it has always been to let the atrocities play out
The administration is saying the justifications, the stenographers of empire are the ones uncritically reporting them.
Do you really need me to spell it out?
Now, U.S. officials have dropped their calls for a ceasefire, arguing that circumstances have changed.
“We do support Israel launching these incursions to degrade Hezbollah’s infrastructure so ultimately we can get a diplomatic resolution,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a press briefing earlier this week.
The course change reflects conflicting U.S. goals - containing the ever-growing Middle East conflict while also severely weakening Iran-backed Hezbollah.
But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know—fiction.
I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant, but I think that the volume of discussion encompassing whether Reuters is presenting propaganda is worth no one’s time.
Wikipedia has never been a trust worthy source, it’s a tertiary source like hearsay. You can’t use it directly, technically you shouldn’t use it’s sources directly. Doing either will get any academic paper just completely disqualified.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources
It’s propaganda by the US government, not by Reuters. Reuters is accurately reporting the US government’s stated position.
Why doesn’t Reuters say it’s state propaganda then?
Okay after taking another look at the article it’s not even propaganda. The US will let Israel fight Hezbollah with no change in US-Israeli relations. That’s the only possible meaning of “let the conflict play out” here. Their reporting isn’t misleading in any way.
The US is supplying the bombs that are being used to indescriminantly murder civilians though.
Still not propaganda.
yeah it is, it’s uncritically reporting what the administration is saying, justifying the war even, despite the fact that they obviously control the reins on this mad dog - they could cut off weapons at any time.
The US strategy has not changed despite the headline, it has always been to let the atrocities play out
I see no justifications of the war in the article. Sounds like the issue is that it doesn’t say the things you’d prefer?
The administration is saying the justifications, the stenographers of empire are the ones uncritically reporting them.
Do you really need me to spell it out?
We love a practical warmonger 🤩🤩🤩
The article is not justifying the war, and I won’t entertain unsourced speculation as though it is fact. It is not propaganda.
Unsourced speculation is a weird way to say “reading the article and citing what it said”
Yea, like where I read it and it isn’t justifying the war.
I’m bored now. Goodbye.
Edit: reiterating goodbye.
Would you know propaganda if it walked up and bit you?
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Noam Chomsky: The five filters of the mass media machine
I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant, but I think that the volume of discussion encompassing whether Reuters is presenting propaganda is worth no one’s time.
You sweet summer child.
Ignoring corroborating opinions from Wikipedia…
Wikipedia 😂 Meet Wikipedia’s Ayn Rand-loving founder and Wikimedia Foundation’s regime-change operative CEO
Ah yes I forgot Wikipedia isn’t trustworthy here either.
Wikipedia has never been a trust worthy source, it’s a tertiary source like hearsay. You can’t use it directly, technically you shouldn’t use it’s sources directly. Doing either will get any academic paper just completely disqualified.