Reuters
Reviews and Complaints

just about the headlines though, the articles themselves can be lacking in depth and analysis. It's like they just skim the surface and don't really dig deep into the issues. And don't even get me started on the spelling and grammar errors, it's like they don't even have an editor. But I guess that's what you get when you rely on a big corporate news outlet like Reuters. They're more concerned with pleasing their advertisers than providing quality journalism.

That being said, I still check Reuters every now and then just to see what's going on in the world. It's better than nothing I suppose. But if you really want to stay informed, you're better off doing your own research and finding independent sources that aren't afraid to speak truth to power. Because let's face it, the mainstream media isn't going to do it for us.

Reuters is a news website that covers a wide range of topics, including politics. However, some people have noticed that the website seems to be biased towards Hillary Clinton. This bias is evident in the way that the website portrays the two candidates. For example, all of the pictures of Donald Trump are taken while he is mid-sentence, making him look like a goblin. On the other hand, all of the pictures of Clinton are her smiling and looking good in every article. This is a clear indication that the website is trying to make Clinton look good and Trump look bad.

Furthermore, the website seems to praise Clinton like she's an angel who does no wrong. Meanwhile, Trump can cough at the wrong time and be called unfit for president. This is a clear indication that the website is biased towards Clinton and against Trump. This kind of bias can be annoying to read, especially if you are looking for unbiased political news.

Despite this bias, Reuters is still a good source of news for other topics. If you are looking for political news, however, it might be best to go elsewhere. There are many other websites that offer unbiased political news, and it's important to get your news from a variety of sources to get a well-rounded view of the world.

I gotta say, Reuters is a pretty solid news site. You know how some folks get all up in arms about political bias in the media? Well, I haven't really seen that with Reuters. At least, not from what I've read. I tend to trust the research and community reports from NewsGuard, AllSides, and Media Bias/Fact Check more than some of the angry folks out there who just want to spout off their political opinions.

One thing I will say about Reuters is that it's not the flashiest site out there. You're not gonna find a bunch of bells and whistles or fancy graphics. But honestly, I kinda like that. It's just straight-up news without all the distractions. And hey, sometimes less is more, you know?

Overall, I'd definitely recommend Reuters if you're looking for a reliable source of news. It's not perfect, but what news site is? At least with Reuters, you can trust that you're getting the facts without a bunch of political spin.

Reuters is a news website that has been around for a long time. It used to be a good source of news, but now it is very biased. I read a lot of news websites every day to get a good idea of what is going on in the world, but Reuters is not one of them anymore. They have been getting worse and worse over the last two years. They try to hide their bias, but they are not very good at it. Anyone with a brain can see that they are just as bad as CNN when it comes to being truthful about anything related to the President or any Republican. I don't like it when Fox News is biased, but Reuters is even worse. They are at the same level as CNN when it comes to biased reporting.

Thomson Reuters is a news organization that has been around for a long time. They say they are all about integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. But lately, I've noticed that their reporting has become more like opinions than news. It seems like they have a political agenda, especially when it comes to things like immigration, China, and American politics.

Last year, there was a serial killer named Billy Chemirmir who killed a lot of white people. But Reuters didn't write a single article about it. I don't understand why they wouldn't think that was important news. Instead, they wrote about things like an argument in a dog park. That doesn't seem right to me.

It's not just Reuters, though. I've also lost faith in other institutions like the ACLU. It's hard to know who to trust these days. But I think it's important to keep looking for the truth and not just believe everything we read.

Last Friday, Reuter's published a headline story that quoted an employee of Care ambulance services, Eileen Cegarra, who claimed to be "overwhelmed" with calls for "Covid." As someone who grew up in the Los Angeles county area, where this ambulance service is located, I can tell you that I have never heard of this company before! It seems strange that someone who thought they had "Covid" would not go to their regular doctor, an emergency room, or call 911 if they were experiencing emergency symptoms. Especially since Covid is said to have mild flu-like symptoms and a survival rate of over 99%.

So, I decided to call Care ambulance services in Santa Fe Springs and spoke with Jennifer at the front desk. I asked her if they were truly overwhelmed with calls for people claiming they had Covid. "No," she said. It was not true. She then got very nervous and would not put me through to speak with Eileen Cegarra.

I believe that Reuter's journalists Norma Galeana and Alan Devall should be fired for publishing this fear-mongering story. It went out to all sorts of different news agencies and made front-page headlines, and it is simply not true!

Furthermore, I would like to know why Reuters has not published any photos of the actual pandemic from their award-winning photojournalists. They have so many wonderful photographers, and yet none of them have shared photos from the middle of the "pandemic."

Overall, I am disappointed in Reuter's for publishing this false story and not providing any visual evidence of the pandemic. It is important for news agencies to report accurate information and provide evidence to support their claims.

I used to love Reuters for their unbiased news reporting, but lately, I have noticed that they are not as neutral as they used to be. It seems like the stories they post are more biased than before. As a moderate, I like to read news that is just the facts, but it's hard to find that these days. Reuters used to be my go-to source for unbiased news, but now I'm not so sure.

It seems like whoever is writing the story is pushing their own values and judgments. They seem to have a very globalist perspective and are pushing for countries without borders. While I understand that this may be important to some people, not everyone believes in or values the globalist agenda.

Another issue I have noticed with Reuters is that they seem to only focus on financial factors when judging the performance of a country. While money is important, there are so many other things that people value and want more than financial success. For example, maybe a country wants a lower population to decrease pollution or have less of a drain on resources. Maybe they want a simpler way of life. While increasing population can cause an increase in productivity and the appearance of financial success, it can also cause a strain on resources, more pollution, and crowding.

Overall, I still read Reuters, but I take their reporting with a grain of salt. I try to read between the lines and form my own opinions based on the facts presented. I wish they would go back to their unbiased reporting, but I understand that everyone has their own values and beliefs.

I love to keep up with the latest news, and my go-to source for online news is the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/). However, when it comes to international news, I always turn to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com). I also check out CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/), but sometimes they don't provide enough analysis and just repeat the same sound bites over and over again. It's always a good idea to check multiple sources to get a well-rounded view of the news.

One thing I really appreciate about Reuters is the drop-down menu that allows me to select news feeds from different world offices. This is especially helpful when I want to get a more localized perspective on a particular story.

As I write this review (11th Feb 2011), Egypt is in the midst of a major political upheaval. Mubarak has refused to step down, and massive demonstrations are taking place in Cairo and Alexandria. The fate of the country hangs in the balance, and the world is watching to see what will happen next.

If the military backs Mubarak, there could be a violent crackdown on the protesters. If the army turns against him, it could have far-reaching consequences for the entire Middle East and beyond.

It's interesting to note that the Iranian government has blocked the BBC and is trying to suppress news about the situation in Egypt. This is a common tactic used by dictators who are afraid of losing power. Even Saudi Arabia and Israel are keeping a close eye on what's happening in Egypt.

The United States and Britain are now calling for Mubarak to step down, as they try to maintain their own positions in the Middle East. These are truly interesting times we live in.

I can't understand why anyone would waste their time watching mindless TV shows or soap operas when there's so much real news to be consumed. Reuters is one of the best sources for hard-hitting news that doesn't pull any punches.

I used to read Reuters for unbiased reporting, but lately it's been going downhill. They've been adding negative spin to positive events, which is not what I signed up for. For example, their recent article on CNBC about "Made in America Week" was filled with invective, sabotaging the positive event. The first line sets the mood by declaring "Plagued by daily revelations... the White House... tries to focus on issues that matter". I don't think Reuters or CNBC knows the motivation of the White House and is probably misrepresenting the real purpose of the event which is to showcase American products from all 50 states. An event of this magnitude has been in planning long before "the plague" of recent events.

The next paragraph cites the White House spokesperson speaking from "a hotel near President Donald Trump's golf course" which has nothing to do with Made in America Week but serves to impugn the President for his past use of his resorts. This is not what I expect from Reuters.

The negative spin goes on through the entire report. It's possible that CNBC hijacked the Reuters feed and put their own spin on it or made it up on their own as there is no mention of Made in America Week in Reuters Top News, US, or Politics feeds. Is this more fake news? Maybe Reuters should monitor better how other media sources use their reports.

I want straight up news. Just the facts. No spin. No interpretation. No bias. I'll form my own opinions, thank you. Reuters needs to get back to its roots and provide unbiased reporting.

Reuters is a British company that started reporting on the stock exchange and world financial markets. They have now expanded into the wider field of international news reporting and are considered one of the giants in the industry, alongside CNN. Although they are now owned by a Canadian company, they still have a headquarters building in London and others in the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

They claim to take their objectivity very seriously, but they were recently caught faking images of a confrontation in the Middle East. This incident apparently put the Israelis in a better light. However, I won't get into that one, other than to say that in my opinion, the news is rarely what it seems to be, regardless of who is reporting it.

Reuters still places emphasis on reporting business and financial news, as you can see from the main heading topics on the front page of the site. However, they have also lost their fair share of war correspondents in the call of duty, demonstrating that their focus has widened considerably over the years.

There are several national editions of the site, and it should automatically detect which one is right for you. If not, you can choose from a list of editions in a drop-down menu at the top of the page.

I couldn't say whether Reuters' brand of reporting is more or less objective than anyone else's. You'll have to make up your mind on that one. But I do like the way they present the news, with little or no sensationalism and in a clean, tidy format that loads quickly even on my slow laptop. It's definitely worth a look if you haven't gotten your news from here before.

Reuters used to be a pretty good place to get the news that wasn't biased, but now it's just a left-leaning mouthpiece. They have headlines that are misleading about the current president of the United States, and they love to use "unnamed sources" as if they're real news. It's really too bad that they're not a trustworthy news source anymore.

Reuters used to be a really good place to get your news from. They were always fair and balanced, but something has changed. It seems like they're only interested in making money now, and that's really too bad. It's like they're working for the Democrats exclusively now. It's really sad that we can't just get the news without all the propaganda. I just want to be able to make up my own mind about what I believe.

I recently visited Reuters.com to get my news fix and I gotta say, it's a pretty solid site. They got all the latest news stories from around the world, and they seem to be pretty unbiased in their reporting. I mean, sure, there's always gonna be some slant one way or the other, but overall they seem to be pretty fair.

One thing I really appreciate about Reuters is that they don't just focus on the big headlines. They also cover a lot of smaller stories that might not get as much attention elsewhere. It's nice to get a more well-rounded view of what's going on in the world.

That being said, I do have a couple of gripes with the site. For one thing, the layout can be a bit confusing at times. It's not always clear where to find the stories you're looking for, and sometimes the headlines can be a bit misleading. I've clicked on a few stories thinking they were about one thing, only to find out they were actually about something completely different.

Also, I've noticed that there are occasionally some spelling and grammar errors in the articles. I mean, I'm no English major myself, but it's a bit jarring to see mistakes like that in a professional news publication. I get that everyone makes mistakes, but it does detract from the overall quality of the site.

All in all, though, I'd say Reuters is definitely worth checking out if you're looking for a reliable source of news. Just be prepared to do a bit of digging to find the stories you're interested in, and don't be too surprised if you come across a typo or two along the way.

I heard about Reuters from my friend who said that they are all about being accurate and fair in their reporting. I decided to check it out for myself and see what all the fuss was about. I gotta say, they do seem to be pretty good at getting the facts right. But, I also noticed that some people are saying that they have a left-wing, anti-American bias. I don't know about all that, but I did find an article from 'Accuracy in Media' that talks about it. You can read it here http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/reuters-anti-american-bias/.

I think it's important to get news from a variety of sources so you can make up your own mind about what's going on in the world. But, if you're looking for a place to start, Reuters seems like a pretty good choice. They cover a lot of different topics and seem to be pretty thorough in their reporting. Of course, no one is perfect and mistakes can happen. But, overall, I think they do a pretty good job of keeping people informed.

I been checkin' out Reuters all day today and let me tell ya, they been pushin' some real bogus stuff. Seems like they tryna make it easier for them rich hedge funds to come out on top, even if it means the little guy gets screwed over. I'm tellin' ya, I'm real disappointed in 'em and I ain't never gonna trust anything they say again. We need news we can rely on, not some made-up stories that only benefit the wealthy.

Reuters is a news website that has been causing a lot of trouble in Andhra Pradesh, India. They have been spreading fake news about the KIA car plant moving out to a different state, which has caused a lot of unrest among the people. This news has created a lot of fear among the people, as they are worried about losing their jobs and the state losing its investments.

It is clear that Reuters has a political motive behind this news, as they have favored a political party. This is not fair to the people of Andhra Pradesh, who are already struggling to make ends meet. The news has caused a lot of confusion and chaos among the people, and it is not helping anyone.

It is important for news websites like Reuters to be responsible and report the truth. They should not spread fake news and cause unrest among the people. The people of Andhra Pradesh deserve better, and they should not be subjected to this kind of treatment.

In conclusion, Reuters needs to be more responsible in their reporting. They should not spread fake news and cause unrest among the people. The people of Andhra Pradesh deserve better, and they should not be subjected to this kind of treatment.

I'm a grandma and I don't usually say much, but I gotta tell ya, I heard Reuters talkin' 'bout the Republican National Convention and they was so dang biased! They kept throwin' in all these comments and opinions and it just ain't right. It's a shame that American journalism has gone down the drain like this. I had to speak up and say somethin'. It's just plain sad.

Reuters is a website that provides news from all around the world. It's a pretty good site if you want to know what's going on in the world. However, sometimes they can be a bit biased towards certain political views. It's not always easy to tell what's true and what's not, but that's just the way it is with news these days.

The website is easy to navigate and has a lot of different categories to choose from. You can find news about politics, business, sports, and entertainment. They also have a section for opinion pieces, which can be interesting to read.

One thing that I don't like about Reuters is that they don't always use proper grammar and spelling. It can be a bit annoying to read articles that are full of mistakes. However, I guess that's just the way it is with online news these days.

Overall, I think Reuters is a good website to check out if you want to stay informed about what's going on in the world. Just be aware that they can be a bit biased at times, and don't expect perfect grammar and spelling.

I gotta say, I'm not too impressed with Reuters these days. Their take on the political situation in the US this past July was way off the mark, and it seems like they're more interested in pushing their own agenda than reporting the news. Back in the day, journalists like Edward R. Murrow were all about the facts, but that's just not the case anymore. Nowadays, it feels like Reuters is too caught up in their own biases to give us the real story.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I know that every news source has their own perspective. But it seems like Reuters is taking things to a whole new level. They're so focused on promoting certain ideologies that they're not even bothering to report the truth anymore. It's a shame, really, because I used to rely on them for accurate information.

All in all, I'd say that Reuters has really lost its way. They need to get back to the basics of journalism and start focusing on the facts, not their own opinions. Until they do that, I don't think I'll be using them as a news source anymore.