Reuters is very often used and quoted in parliamentary hearings, google updates and different news outlets. Many people say that this is because of the "independent " nature of reporting of Reuters. But how is this so? What makes Reuters different from the other news channels?
Asked
Active
Viewed 9,376 times
5 Answers
88
The Reuters organization a news agency, not a news media organization. That means their primary function is to collect news from across the globe and deliver it to newspapers, magazines, news shows, and other media sources, who then present it to the public. As such, they have an incentive to be impartial, because impartiality maximizes their client base: even biased news organizations want unbiased raw material. News media sources can get away with a slant on the news because they try to appeal to specific demographics in the general population; news agencies cannot afford that. Further, Reuters has an established policy of value-neutral reporting, and a very long track-record (they were founded in 1851) of sticking to it. Those things build trust.
They've had a few scandals over time — see their Wikipedia page for details — but nothing that shakes their otherwise solid reputation.
Ted Wrigley
- 69,144
- 23
- 179
- 235
-
13No, Reuters is not only a news agency. It's also a market data provider. In fact, its market data business might be a larger source of its revenue than its news business. But leaving that aside, it is first and foremost a publicly traded company. Its 1st responsibility is to its shareholders. – wrod Mar 19 '22 at 06:10
-
17
- The same things that incentivize news sources to pander to a certain demographic rather than "maximize their client base" apply to reuters wrt its clients: focusing on stories that the more lucrative clients want, avoiding stories that turn off powerful clients, etc. 2. This answer assumes biased reporting is conscious and can be controlled in the interest of profit maximization. True at times but usually what is regarded as biased the source views as thoroughly objective/obvious.
– Hasse1987 Mar 19 '22 at 23:14 -
12@Hasse1987: The question asks why Reuters is considered independent and unbiased. The answer is that Reuters has made a policy and practice of being independent and unbiased. They could have chosen to do otherwise, in which case they wouldn't have that reputation. Bias is not necessarily conscious, sure, but the choice to be unbiased necessarily is. Please don't indulge speculation to the exclusion of observable reality. – Ted Wrigley Mar 19 '22 at 23:40
-
2There is a problem with your answer or with Wiki: Wiki includes BBC and CNN and Fox News as News Agencies too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_news_agencies#A%E2%80%93M – bandybabboon Mar 20 '22 at 10:29
-
2@LifeInTheTrees using the answer's definition of a news agency, it would exclude the BBC, CNN, Fox and Tass (comment above). This is an operational definition. CNN and Fox would be considered News Media Organizations in his operational definition. Both TASS and the BBC are organs of a government. The same is true for Voice of America or Radio Free Europe. You could alter definitions quite a bit and cut them up other ways. However, his answer would survive operationally. – Dave Harris Mar 21 '22 at 04:12
-
2@DaveHarris BBC is not the voice of a government. It happens to be funded by a type of tax but there are many cases of the UK government being criticised by the BBC and vice versa. TASS, VoA and RFE are setup as organs of government. – mmmmmm Mar 21 '22 at 13:02
-
1@Hasse1987 That implies a different kind of bias. (Which topics and stories are reported on, vs. how they're reported on.) The existence of different kinds of bias makes the question vague. – Tech Inquisitor Mar 21 '22 at 15:55
-
@TedWrigley and I have a policy of not eating after 9pm. Does that mean I never eat after 9pm? No. A policy is just a governance requirement put on the company by the executives. How, when , and even whether it is enforced is a different matter altogether. It's not a contract. No one owes anyone any money if a policy is broken. Although violating a policy could be cause for dismissal, it doesn't have to be if there are contravening circumstances. – wrod Mar 21 '22 at 23:26
-
@wrod: You seem to have confused the intellectual concept of 'policy' with the social concept of 'trust'. Say two people set the you set the 'no food after 9:00pm" policy. Almost every day Person A is seen eating after 9:00; Person B is caught eating after 9:00 only 6 or 7 times over a decade. They both have the same policy, but Person B can be trusted to follow through while Person A cannot. We doin't trust Reuters merely because they have a policy. We trust Reuters because they have consistently followed through on it. Appeal to Perfection isn't going to work here... – Ted Wrigley Mar 22 '22 at 01:37
-
@TedWrigley I am not appealing to perfection. I am, however, pointing out that policy does not constitute a contract, but merely a set of goals. And, for various reasons, it may not have followed through on those goals on any number of occasions. You may think those to be irrelevant or simply blemishes showing it not being perfect, but I am not sure that they would. Believing in having a higher standard, than the standards which one can actually be said to have, is how one ends up dropping the ball on improving the implementation of the higher standard. – wrod Mar 22 '22 at 02:15
-
@TedWrigley as for the claim that they have "followed through" on the goal of being value neutral, that is an entirely subjective evaluation which you are trying to pass an objective one. The only accurate way to make such a claim is to say according to whom they have "followed through" on this policy. And, if you want to be entirely forthcoming, according to whom they have not "followed through" on that policy. – wrod Mar 22 '22 at 02:22
-
@wrod: Uh... despite what you say, this is almost a picture-perfect example of an Appeal to Perfection fallacy. Basically you're saying that we cannot consider Reuters 'good' because that would inhibit them from achieving 'better-than-good' (i.e., something closer to perfection). But sorry, they are good; they have an exceptionally good track record at enacting this policy. Trust in them is thoroughly deserved, and is the only metric we need of their success. If they have fallen flat here and there across the years, it hasn't been notable or sufficient enough to disrupt that social trust. – Ted Wrigley Mar 22 '22 at 02:29
-
@TedWrigley I am saying that you are passing your opinion as an objective truth and that you are expressing a level of certainty which they themselves do not express. "But sorry, they are good" is an opinion. That's all there is to it. You are asking, or even demanding, that your opinion be taken at face value. – wrod Mar 22 '22 at 02:47
-
@wrod: If you refuse to accept social facts, then everything is an opinion. That's not my issue. – Ted Wrigley Mar 22 '22 at 02:56
-
"Social facts" is not a standard this site accepts. Demanding that you be believed, because it's presumably normal to believe what you are saying at the moment, is not informative. At the very least, you should mention in which circles this assertion is viewed to be a social fact. Simply stating that it is a social fact is not falsifiable. All subjective claims should have their sources attached to them. For subjective claims, their source is part of their essential context. – wrod Mar 22 '22 at 03:15
16
Reuters is one of the eminent sources for news in the Western world. It is not surprising that it is considered unbiased by many in the West. After all, it squarely reflects and reports from the position of their values and world views. From a different position their reporting may very well seem biased.
China, for example, found bias in Reuters' Olympics reporting and criticizes Reuters and other major news organizations accusing them of participating in the surveillance of Chinese citizens.1
1 I'm tempted to remark "one who sits in a glasshouse shouldn't throw stones at others' houses", or isn't that "the pot calling the kettle black" or simply "hear, hear!" but then I'm of course utterly biased.
wrod
- 9,321
- 25
- 64
Peter - Reinstate Monica
- 9,705
- 1
- 26
- 48
-
9"squarely reflects and reports from the position of their values and world views" - sounds like something that needs further elaboration and strong evidence. – Gallifreyan Mar 19 '22 at 14:13
-
I don't see how the 2nd claim-claim is supported by the link provided. – the gods from engineering Mar 20 '22 at 03:17
-
@Fizz In the video the woman says: "This mass surveillance company [IPVM] has worked closely with the BBC, the New York Times, Reuters... They have been sharing tons of data they have collected on Xinjiang ...". – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 20 '22 at 03:49
-
The claim is rather ambiguous as to whom is "they". But I guess that's the point of a smear campaign. – the gods from engineering Mar 20 '22 at 03:55
-
1@Fizz I read "they" in the context as referring to "the mass surveillance company". Btw, I agree in your assessment of that Chinese media piece, as, I'm sure, does Reuters, but then I'm utterly biased ;-). – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 20 '22 at 10:59
12
Reuters is considered unbiased because the evidence bears out that position. See this answer. They are firmly in the center.
Edit: see also this source. Reuters is in the category that uses the least appeals to emotion and fewest loaded words, plus the reporting is factual and usually sourced.
Allure
- 34,557
- 16
- 102
- 190
-
1I'm not sure why this answer is getting downvotes. There are many ways to attempt to fairly rate the bias of different sources, and in all of them I've seen, Reuters is among the most reliable and unbiased sources. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Mar 19 '22 at 10:54
-
17The link points to a statement that Reuters overall political slant (to the extent it exists) is centrist. If you think that being centrist is related to being unbiased, that is your own centrist bias acting up. – Arno Mar 19 '22 at 12:33
-
10Isn't that an informal fallacy? That the "middle position" is right simply for being middle? – Mar 19 '22 at 20:50
-
2@frеdsbend That is mistaking effect for cause. If you report fairly on the right, left and centre, the average will be in the centre as an effect. That's different from reporting fairly only on the centre, when a centrist bias would be the cause. – Graham Mar 20 '22 at 00:45
-
2@Graham Sure, I'm just suggesting that a "centrist" bias seems to only exist if its adherents believe "middle is better because it's middle". – Mar 20 '22 at 03:33
-
1I've downvoted this answer, because it confuses "centrist" with "unbiased". A centrist bias is still a bias, so being centrist and being unbiased have nothing to do with each other. – gerrit Mar 21 '22 at 09:25
2
Reuters historically had been the general source for all (most) major news networks across the globe and without political alliances. They've typically taken on a base facts approach, without bogging themselves down on "he said" or "she said" reporting, as you see from many others, and this base facts reporting gave them the banner of being neutral in their reporting. Leaving the morality for others to debate & report gives them the freedom to report in neutral grey tones, hence the reputation. And traditional reputation counts for a lot, even as the influence diminishes in recent years.
Also note, they were never there to sell newspapers, and thus never needed to cater to any particular social/political belief ideology, their primary market was to sell to newspapers globally, for which neutralised news meant more newspaper companies purchased news from them (the various news networks thus being free to simply add their own editorial biases without going too far).
And finally, what do you compare it to? In non-west countries, papers follow their respective government's demands or are shut down, and in the west news networks are controlled by various extremist ideologues of all sides; and thus, even as their own news reporting becomes less careful, there isn't many (any) who can take that mantle of (relative) unbias away from them.
Brian Davids
- 41
- 1
-1
It's not. Just as other UK-based media, such as BBC, Reuters has a very British-consensus minded slant.
Which is not to say that it promotes some underhanded or nefarious consensus formed by some secret-society backroom conspiracy. Rather that it must present news in a fashion that is palatable both to its customers (world-wide) and to its management. And what is palatable is effectively determined by consensus.
To put it in a yet another way, when a conflict of Overton windows arises, the Overton window a British news agency is most likely to chose is the British one.
On a separate note, the fact that Reuters is a publicly traded company, in itself, creates a potential conflict of interest which is outside of the control of its management.
- While it is possible that Reuters does not covertly report to any government entity,
- there always remains a possibility (however remote) that a government (not even necessarily the British one) exploits the legal mechanisms of influence on corporations' governing boards.
Namely, because governments have access to much greater financial resources than most private entities, there is simply no way of verifying whether, or not, any publically-traded privately-owned news entity's board is influenced by financial holding companies owned by intelligence agencies or other government entities (not even necessarily British ones) which lack transparency. Such financial holding entities would have direct voting rights and the ability to influence board decisions which come with those rights.
And, of course, board members' decisions influence corporate directions, staffing philosophies, and other factors which have secondary impact on how content is presented.
This is not an issue unique to Reuters. This is a general issue arising out of lack of transparency of minority shareholders of publicly-traded companies.
wrod
- 9,321
- 25
- 64
-
17This answer is too speculative. There aren't any external sources for any of the claims included. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 19 '22 at 07:11
-
2@Trilarion the only claim of fact which I have made is that Reuters is a publicly-traded company. That is such a commonly known fact that I don't think it requires references. – wrod Mar 19 '22 at 07:13
-
9Then I stay with that the rest of the answer is too speculative. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 19 '22 at 07:15
-
1@Trilarion that's a subjective evaluation and I think it's perfectly fine for people to disagree on those. – wrod Mar 19 '22 at 07:17
-
10I haven’t voted either way on this question, but the way you write “it is possible that Reuters doesn’t report to the government” makes it sound like you’re strongly implying that it does. If that’s not your intention, then you might want to reword that sentence – divibisan Mar 20 '22 at 00:54
-
@divibisan i don't know either way though. I do know that there is a legal way for the governments to do this because Reuters is publicly traded. I can't possibly know that some government isn't taking advantage of it. If this was illegal in some way, there would a reason to think that it's not happening. But it is legal. – wrod Mar 20 '22 at 01:28
-
2@wrod and that is misinformation. Spreading "doubts" is just misinformation and bad, you don't say: "it is possible that that politician is pedophile, communist, fascist, whatever bad". You cannot hide by saying "I didn't make any claims I just said it was possible, and we don't know". – paul23 Mar 21 '22 at 20:19
-
@paul23 it would be illegal for a politician to be a pedophile. I haven't made any claim of anything illegal being done or even enabled or likely to be enabled. All I said is that there is a certain way corporate governance may be exploited without public knowledge. But again, not illegally. Pointing out a possibility (a real one because it would be a run-of-the-mill corporate governance process) is not an accusation. It's just a description. – wrod Mar 21 '22 at 23:18
-
2Yes and a politician might be a pedophile - not likely but it's a possibility. This is not an accusation just a description of what might be happening. -- Do you see how useless such things are? We cannot discus things and by making such statements someone might "believe" it and misread it as fact. Thus creating the seed for misinformation. – paul23 Mar 22 '22 at 13:49
-
@paul23 while you concentrate on similarities, you are brushing aside the difference which is crucial here. One would be illegal and the other one would be legal and ordinary. Suggesting, without evidence, that someone maybe doing something illegal is an uncalled for accusation. Suggesting, even without evidence, that someone maybe doing something legal, by describing the capacity which allows it, is not an accusation. It's a description of that capacity. – wrod Mar 22 '22 at 15:26
-
1But it is misinformation. Hey that politician might also have a trustfund that helps with their policies. Or maybe that politician is just helping some friends. Or maybe..... – paul23 Mar 22 '22 at 17:38
-
@paul23 No, that would not be misinformation. Describing elements which are not transparent, but are legal, is par for the course. Although I am not sure that "helping some friends" is always legal, but assuming the nature of the help is innocuous, it's fair game. For example, pointing out that Chelsea Clinton got into Stanford while Bill Clinton was POTUS would not be misinformation. Nor would pointing out that he probably could have helped her to get accepted. But it would be fair to point out that maybe she got in all on her own. – wrod Mar 22 '22 at 18:30
-
If one speaks about pure opinions it's always best to include both possibilities in writing, like it may or may not be that X. That way a fair treatment is given to all possibilities and the usefulness of the statement is also conveyed correctly. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 23 '22 at 07:43
-
@Trilarion I strongly agree with your point in general. Did you have anything in mind, specific to my re-write of the answer, which can be improved by adhering to this principle? – wrod Mar 23 '22 at 15:08