Is Reuters credible?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Reuters is straight down the middle.

Bullshit on a stick! I suppose you think The Economist is on an even keel as well?

Reuters is far far far from accurate particularly in their coverage of Africa and the Middle East. They can do so because of their size and so few other western news/media entities don't have their own assets in the area.

Reuters has had their hand caught on the mouse of pictures so many times it's tragic.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

So exactly who do you think Reuters is biased for or against?

Please back that up with some sort of independent journalism review or at least something other than the fact they've occasionally had some photos pass through their system that had been manipulated.

Here is their internal policy;
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/Freedom_from_bias

So at least internally, they state specifically they never take sides. Please show me a study of some sort that says they don't attempt to live up to it. Somebody, by the way, we can all agree that they themselves are without bias.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[falxori 0]

Quote

some sort of independent journalism review

I doubt such a source exist, for anything. every journalist is a person and is biased by definition.

Quote

some photos pass through their system that had been manipulated.

again, you're downplaying the act. THEY manipulated the pictures and they did it more than once.

Quote

Here is their internal policy

yeah well, the deceleration of independence said that all men are created equal. took awhile for actions to catch up on that...

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

some sort of independent journalism review

I doubt such a source exist, for anything. every journalist is a person and is biased by definition.

Quote

some photos pass through their system that had been manipulated.

again, you're downplaying the act. THEY manipulated the pictures and they did it more than once.

Quote

Here is their internal policy

yeah well, the deceleration of independence said that all men are created equal. took awhile for actions to catch up on that...

So your position is: "It's a conspiracy"

You are not very smart.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[billvon 3,133]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[falxori 0]

Quote

So your position is: "It's a conspiracy"

Not sure what you mean by that.
conspiracy is a big word. I'll settle for someone trying to "reposition reality" to fit their views.

Quote

You are not very smart.

Thank you, I love you too.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

So exactly who do you think Reuters is biased for or against?

Please back that up with some sort of independent journalism review or at least something other than the fact they've occasionally had some photos pass through their system that had been manipulated.

Here is their internal policy;
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/Freedom_from_bias

So at least internally, they state specifically they never take sides. Please show me a study of some sort that says they don't attempt to live up to it. Somebody, by the way, we can all agree that they themselves are without bias.

Here is some of that:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Study_Reuters_Headlines.asp

and more:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/One_Year_Analysis_Reuters_2007_Pictures_of_the_Month.asp

Your request that we show, "that they don't attempt to live up to it" is unreasonable. Without having insiders admit intentional bias, analyzing what they publish is what matters.

If you're a lib, I'm sure it seems that they are, as you said, "right down the middle" but that is hardly the way it really is.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

So exactly who do you think Reuters is biased for or against?

Please back that up with some sort of independent journalism review or at least something other than the fact they've occasionally had some photos pass through their system that had been manipulated.

Here is their internal policy;
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/Freedom_from_bias

So at least internally, they state specifically they never take sides. Please show me a study of some sort that says they don't attempt to live up to it. Somebody, by the way, we can all agree that they themselves are without bias.

Here is some of that:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Study_Reuters_Headlines.asp

and more:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/One_Year_Analysis_Reuters_2007_Pictures_of_the_Month.asp

Your request that we show, "that they don't attempt to live up to it" is unreasonable. Without having insiders admit intentional bias, analyzing what they publish is what matters.

If you're a lib, I'm sure it seems that they are, as you said, "right down the middle" but that is hardly the way it really is.

That site is surely unbiased, look at the other stuff they've covered (from their archive):
www.honestreporting.com/a/archive.asp

Yep, no bias there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Never said they're unbiased. Did you think I had?

If you have a problem with their accuracy, make it clear.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Never said they're unbiased. Did you think I had?

If you have a problem with their accuracy, make it clear.

So you're using a clearly biased organization's analysis to show bias in another organization. I can see how that makes sense to a biased person.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

I can see how a biased person isn't willing to refute what honestreporting.com has to say, for that would upset things in your world if you could not do so. Much easier to pretend like you're able to find some unbiased site upon which to base your unbiased assessment of the truth.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In the recent flotilla incident threads there were a lot of discussions about which news source is "unbiased and credible".

Many refer to Reuters as one. is it?
look a the deliberate cropping of the pictures from the boat, conveniently removing knives from the hands of the "peace activists" and bloody Israeli soldiers.

Let's crop out what doesn't fit our story...

I feel I should thank the Turkish newspaper for posting the real pictures...

FOX is fair and balanced, everything else is just liberal propaganda.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Never said they're unbiased. Did you think I had?

If you have a problem with their accuracy, make it clear.

So you're using a clearly biased organization's analysis to show bias in another organization. I can see how that makes sense to a biased person.

It doesn't take an unbiased source to uncover bias - to expose those that are not credible. It only takes the truth.

If you can show where they are wrong, inform us please. If not, then there is no basis for complaint.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Never said they're unbiased. Did you think I had?

If you have a problem with their accuracy, make it clear.

So you're using a clearly biased organization's analysis to show bias in another organization. I can see how that makes sense to a biased person.

It doesn't take an unbiased source to uncover bias - to expose those that are not credible. It only takes the truth.

If you can show where they are wrong, inform us please. If not, then there is no basis for complaint.

They don't have to be WRONG, they just have to withhold contrary information in order to be biased.

There's a reason courts require THE WHOLE TRUTH and not just the part of it that suits the witness.

That website just presents one side - it is biased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Never said they're unbiased. Did you think I had?

If you have a problem with their accuracy, make it clear.

So you're using a clearly biased organization's analysis to show bias in another organization. I can see how that makes sense to a biased person.

It doesn't take an unbiased source to uncover bias - to expose those that are not credible. It only takes the truth.

If you can show where they are wrong, inform us please. If not, then there is no basis for complaint.

They don't have to be WRONG, they just have to withhold contrary information in order to be biased.

There's a reason courts require THE WHOLE TRUTH and not just the part of it that suits the witness.

That website just presents one side - it is biased.

Even if they are biased, it does not mean that they are wrong in this assessment.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Even if they are biased, it does not mean that they are wrong in this assessment.

And just because a broken clock indicates the right time twice a day doesn't mean it's working correctly.

The clock is simply broken and its indications are irrelevant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Never said they're unbiased. Did you think I had?

If you have a problem with their accuracy, make it clear.

So you're using a clearly biased organization's analysis to show bias in another organization. I can see how that makes sense to a biased person.

It doesn't take an unbiased source to uncover bias - to expose those that are not credible. It only takes the truth.

If you can show where they are wrong, inform us please. If not, then there is no basis for complaint.

They don't have to be WRONG, they just have to withhold contrary information in order to be biased.

There's a reason courts require THE WHOLE TRUTH and not just the part of it that suits the witness.

That website just presents one side - it is biased.

Even if they are biased, it does not mean that they are wrong in this assessment.

Correct. It just means they have no credibility when accusing others of bias.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Even if they are biased, it does not mean that they are wrong in this assessment.

And just because a broken clock indicates the right time twice a day doesn't mean it's working correctly.

The clock is simply broken and its indications are irrelevant.

OK - wow - so the truth is only the truth when it is presented by someone that you agree with, regardless of facts.

OK.

In your clock scenario - if you asked me the time and the clock showed 2 o'clock, and it really was 2 o'clock - does that mean you wouldn't accept the truth? Sounds like Rhys and his WTC thinking there.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even if they are biased, it does not mean that they are wrong in this assessment.

And just because a broken clock indicates the right time twice a day doesn't mean it's working correctly.
The clock is simply broken and its indications are irrelevant.

OK - wow - so the truth is only the truth when it is presented by someone that you agree with, regardless of facts.
OK.
In your clock scenario - if you asked me the time and the clock showed 2 o'clock, and it really was 2 o'clock - does that mean you wouldn't accept the truth? Sounds like Rhys and his WTC thinking there.

You still seem to be confused by the difference between the words "fact" and "truth".

In the broken clock example, a point in time we could call "2 o'clock" exists regardless of what anybody has to say about it.

The broken clock is severely biased because it ONLY says one thing over and over - "2 o'clock".

Whether or not the clock tells the "truth" one second out of every 43,200 times does not mean the clock is credible. The "fact" the clock tells the "truth" one time out of every 43,200 times is simply a coincidence and therefore meaningless.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

In your clock scenario - if you asked me the time and the clock showed 2 o'clock, and it really was 2 o'clock - does that mean you wouldn't accept the truth?

If I had a method of confirming that it was actually 2 o'clock. But if I had that I wouldn't have needed to ask you and your broken equipment.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

In your clock scenario - if you asked me the time and the clock showed 2 o'clock, and it really was 2 o'clock - does that mean you wouldn't accept the truth?

If I had a method of confirming that it was actually 2 o'clock. But if I had that I wouldn't have needed to ask you and your broken equipment.

But if CNN was on - there would be no question would there?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

But if CNN was on - there would be no question would there?

Are you saying that your distrust of CNN is so pervasive you don't even believe their clock?

Damn left-wing liberal clocks!

BTW, I have it on good authority that CNN gets its time reference from the the government! Not only that, I think it comes from that liar Biden's home! HOLY SHIT! It's a conspiracy!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

But if CNN was on - there would be no question would there?

Are you saying that your distrust of CNN is so pervasive you don't even believe their clock?

Damn left-wing liberal clocks!

BTW, I have it on good authority that CNN gets its time reference from the the government! Not only that, I think it comes from that liar Biden's home! HOLY SHIT! It's a conspiracy!

No, I am suggesting that the only way to get your ilk to believe something irrifutably is to produce the info from a source that you agree with. Facts at that point are not relevant and photos, cropped, are just as good as the originals.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

No, I am suggesting that the only way to get your ilk to believe something irrifutably is to produce the info from a source that you agree with. Facts at that point are not relevant and photos, cropped, are just as good as the originals.

How, exactly, could you get anyone regardless of their "ilk", to believe anything from a source they didn't agree with? Is that even conceptually possible?

Think about it.

If I don't believe the story of Genesis in the Bible is "true", how are you going to convince me otherwise just by using the Bible as a source?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,603]

And how is that different from your perspective that part of the demonstration that Obama is evil is his failure to do exactly the right thing on Memorial Day, and his failure to display a flag at a particular press conference, when other presidents' similar actions under the same circumstances is irrelevant?

Yeah, different issues, but if you consider the source in evaluating the intent or truthfulness of something, why shouldn't others?

The only way around it is to consider the evidence pro and con (including the evidence that indicates one might be wrong) and come to a conclusion. Only by saying that everything that disagrees with one's desired conclusion is irrelevant does one indicate an unwillingness to consider truth.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)