Talk:Reuters/Archive 1

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reuters&oldid=48076875 is an earlier edition of this will a large 'allegations of bias' section.  It was a tad ugly, so User:Afghanets put most of the content into a "Further reading," which was later deleted by User:Zui1 (now blocked).  The rest of the controversy section has been periodically removed and readded.  With the latest Reuters incident, there'll probably be enough watchdogs to guard this from happening again.  And I'll readd "Further reading." Calbaer 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old 'allegations of bias' section 

message: What's with the recently banned user who, among his other bizarre and vandalizing edits, kept changing the Reuters link to its counterpart on "Yahoo!"?  This isn't a particularly important question—I'm just idly curious.  I mean, some of his edits were blatant vandalism, so he clearly didn't shy away from that.  Why bother just altering a link to something almost as valid?  It's a serious underachievement as far as vandalism goes. Stephen Aquila 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuters web page 

message: I removed the first section, since the second section expanded and explained it. kc12286 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was 72.75.73.18 — I should've just reverted his rewrite instead of fixing it, since obviously I didn't fix everything. Calbaer 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations section

message: I have found an allegation of media bias against Reuters, I guess if the other is "liberal bias" then this would be "conservative bias", although I don't think either term is accurate. I can't read Spanish, so I have no idea how legitimate the claims are, but the screenshots are quite clear in what the description is suggesting. It's interesting and very relevant to me because it's very similar to the fraudulent photos that came from Lebanon. Perhaps evidence of poor journalism, counter to bias. Ajzzz 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More allegations of bias 

message: Please forgive my American imperialism in adding an ɹ to the IPA pronunciation of Reuters.  The rationale was that Americans can include it and everyone else will ignore it as usual because of its position in the word.  Its absence though makes it look as if Americans wouldn't pronounce it at all, but we do.  If there's a better way to make that point in the pronunciation guide, I'm all for it. -- ke4roh 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my inability to read pronunciation guides, but in plain english, is it pronounced [royders]? Or pretty much like that? → JARED (t)  18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, though standard English would write the central consonant as /t/, whether it's pronounced /t/, flapped as /d/ or (how I'd pronounce it) /?/. EdC 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: In the article it said that Reuters was "pronounced 'roy-ters', not 'rew-ters'."  My grandmother's maiden name was Reuter, and our family has always pronounced it rey-ter or the plural rey-ters.  So I was wondering what pronounciation is generally used when referring to this organization?
JesseG 23:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
It's a Germanic name and they pronounce it 'Roy-ter' in Germany and Holland. When the Baron brought the company over from Germany to London, he kept the Germanic pronunciation. It was never Anglicised. Less Americanised.
--Jm butler 02:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: In discussions of bias in corporate media, one only has to ask who owns the media source.  Unfortunately, if the respondent had read this article, he would be forced to say, "I dunno", as this article lacks a divulgement of who owns Reuters.  Is it controlled by a private individual who holds the majority of the stock?  Is it held by a larger firm?  When listening to the news, I've often wondered this myself - "Who owns these guys?  Who do they have to slant the news for to keep their jobs?"  If anyone has this information on Reuters (I don't), PLEASE add it to the article.  Thanks.  Kasreyn
:I heard from a good source that it is owned by Time/Warner,  which also owns AP..   Although I cannot 100% verify this. 
:24.18.229.33 3 Feb 2006
:As the article points out, no single shareholder can hold more than 15% of Reuters. Certainly it is not owned by Time/Warner and neither is AP. Reuters' current biggest shareholder is Fidelity with 9%. AP, by contrast, is a non-profit cooperative of US newspapers and broadcasters. The AP article gives more details. 82.35.173.37 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership?

message: The sentances all start with "Reuters", reters this reuters that... That sounds and looks awfull, and makes me pissed when i try and read it. You should make sure to very the start of sentances, eg "The compeny", "They", or maybe not starting it with referring to them at all. Agreed? 193.217.136.46 18:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reauter,reuter,reuter

message: The section on the Holocaust does seem quite biased, especially the ascertion that Reuters supports Holocaust deniers (which is brought out in the tone of the last sentance)Yellowmellow45 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust 

message: James Taranto as editor of the online editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is notable.  The criticism of Reuters for its rejection of terrorist and other actions are recorded in many places other than OpinionJournal.com such as the Media Research Center, the National Review, the Christian Science Monitor, CNN, and that's just from the first page of a Google search!  It is not merely Taranto's point of view but one shared by many media outlets as an example of bias, bad journalistic practice and dishonesty. My choice of Taranto is that the page is accessible and Taranto linked in his editorials to the sources.
The rebuttal of this would be a cited, verifiable point of view that Reuters is not biased. patsw 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Presenting the point of view that Reuters is biased

message: Does anyone feel like updating the article to mention Reuters' use of the homing pigeon (with microfilm attached to their feet) back in the day before the wire? It was faster than sending someone on a train, aparently. I know nothing about it, really. So i'll leave it to an "expert" to add. Pengo 12:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homing pigeons 

message: The article is missing information on both the Reuters Foundation and AlertNet (which redirects to Reuters). 129.241.11.202 11:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuters Foundation and AlertNet 

message: This mention of her as a member of the board of directors is linked to the actress. I doubt they are the same person.
They are clearly not the same person - the actress is dead! What is the best way to fix the link? (GhostInTheMachine 13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosemary Martin 

message: I would suggest putting the "4 Allegations of bias" including Criticism by a Wall Street Journal columnist, on Terrorism and Holocaust 
into a Further reading section with links. Otherwise, the article resembles a campus discussion. 
Kind regards Afghanets 08:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''This article needs to be properly edited''' 

message: How is this name pronounced? 68.39.174.238 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy-ters Dave 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: May I suggest the section is just removed? There are plenty of other places where this debate can take place. GhostInTheMachine 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy about the use of words? 

message: The "allegations of bias" section was getting better at one point, but eventually got more POV, shrank, and disappeared.  As noted in the archive, it is significant and should be there.  I restored it from what seemed to be its best state and cleaned it up a bit.  Now the primary example given of alleged bias is that, while they claim to not use the word terrorist without scare quotes, they did after the 7 July 2005 London bombings, which James Taranto and others argued to reflect a Euro-centric anti-American bias.  A citation is needed in the claim that Reuters' reporting is pro-corporate (and, if someone wants to re-add it, pro-Western). Calbaer 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy rewrite