::That implies that their official neutrality policy precedes their becoming a significant source of news.  Do you have any evidence of this? 
 ::I'm not insisting that Reuters' policy is a joke.  I'm insisting that it's widely criticized as diminishing, rather than contributing to, objectivity.  And it is widely criticized.  Whether the criticisms are valid is left for the reader to decide. 
 ::I still insist that your proposed headers imply that they're being criticized for being neutral, rather than for their "neutrality policy," and that having a (sub)section on the policy, without mentioning criticisms until later, would diminish this article.