June 22 (Reuters) - Reuters denied on Saturday that it had reported that Israel would attack Lebanon within 48 hours, after reports circulated on social media citing the news agency as saying this.
“Any claims that Reuters reported that Israel will attack Lebanon within the next 48 hours are false. Reuters did not report this,” a Reuters spokesperson said.
People faked loads of shit regarding what Israel did or didn’t. These fake news aren’t really a new thing. Interesting that they now say reuters said something they just didn’t…
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Writing by: Tom Perry
Editing by: Frances Kerry
Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 03:30:27 UTC
Reuters and AP News are really the only two sources I pretty much implicitly trust anymore. As far as I’m concerned, the person reporting false news and attributing it to Reuters should be hung by the neck until dead.
What’s really frustrating is how many American news outlets are just taking AP and Reuters reports, and rehashing them with their own news readers.
Is there any way to get rss feeds directly from AP/Reuters any more?
I think Reuters only has a Best of feed from their agency side, which isn’t really that useful as a news feed. All their feeds seem to be shut down, at least the ones I had stopped working.
Why would that be frustrating? That’s explicitly what they’re for. And we’re better off for it.
The frustration is how AP and Reuters report the facts of what’s going on, and then the other outlets take that and TELL you how to feel about it rather than do their own fact finding
Jsyk in this specific context it’s hanged. Weird right?
Like:
Hanged from the neck until death
I trust Reuters more than I trust Media Bias Fact Check. I of course still vary my media diet, but they’re certainly a pillar of it.
Seem to remember that they had a big scandal with a climate change denier editor that changed some articles a few years ago. Good to remember that no oragnisation is above scrutiny.
In this case, I don’t think its credibility matters beyond whether or not they’d lie about not actually saying something people claimed they said.
