Reuters usually has half decent articles, but they’re owned by billionaires out of Canada. This look into them was done late last year: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12174374
While Reuters is obviously written from a neoliberal perspective, I think as long as you are aware of that, their coverage is fine. It’s very fact based. It’s designed to provide information for investors who are trying to make money from current events, so they have an incentive to do accurate coverage, but of course they will mainly cover things that are relevant to the finance world.
Agree. The whole idea of “balancing” news coverage by combining together US-left and US-right is pretty boneheaded, but there’s actually a solid concept somewhere in there. I think combining factually strong sources, with a genuine variety of slants and takes on the news, will set you up to understand things pretty well. Reuters / NYT / Wapo is okay (for now), Al Jazeera is okay, The Guardian or some other establishment-left news is okay, and all of them are mostly unlikely to just straight-up lie to you factually, so if you combine them I feel like you’re set up with a decently complete picture of the facts. And then of course there are details and opinions that can come in a lot higher quality from some other more niche sources.
It helps that their business model doesn’t rely primarily on ads or user tracking, and instead relies on subscriptions from other news businesses. This obviously isn’t perfect as they do serve some ads, and it requires those other businesses to exist and be profitable, but it’s a helpful layer of insulation.
Reuters usually has half decent articles, but they’re owned by billionaires out of Canada. This look into them was done late last year: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12174374
AP has some sketch board members as shown here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12174861
While Reuters is obviously written from a neoliberal perspective, I think as long as you are aware of that, their coverage is fine. It’s very fact based. It’s designed to provide information for investors who are trying to make money from current events, so they have an incentive to do accurate coverage, but of course they will mainly cover things that are relevant to the finance world.
Agree. The whole idea of “balancing” news coverage by combining together US-left and US-right is pretty boneheaded, but there’s actually a solid concept somewhere in there. I think combining factually strong sources, with a genuine variety of slants and takes on the news, will set you up to understand things pretty well. Reuters / NYT / Wapo is okay (for now), Al Jazeera is okay, The Guardian or some other establishment-left news is okay, and all of them are mostly unlikely to just straight-up lie to you factually, so if you combine them I feel like you’re set up with a decently complete picture of the facts. And then of course there are details and opinions that can come in a lot higher quality from some other more niche sources.
It helps that their business model doesn’t rely primarily on ads or user tracking, and instead relies on subscriptions from other news businesses. This obviously isn’t perfect as they do serve some ads, and it requires those other businesses to exist and be profitable, but it’s a helpful layer of insulation.