Stoutsanitaryware at 19:47, 25 March 2026

2026-03-25T19:47:47Z

CleanupBot II: Removed empty portal template using script

2023-08-14T14:55:20Z

Removed empty portal template using script

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 14 August 2023
Line 138:		Line 138:

	==See also==		==See also==
	~~{{Portal\|Journalism\|United Kingdom~~
	}}
	* [[Interbank market]], competitor		* [[Interbank market]], competitor
	* [[List of news agencies]]		* [[List of news agencies]]

UpdateBot: robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

2022-06-17T16:17:26Z

robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

Show changes

CleanupBot: clean up

2021-08-12T08:35:13Z

clean up

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 12 August 2021
Line 121:		Line 121:
	===Policy of objective language===		===Policy of objective language===
	[[File:Reuters Building.jpg\|thumb\|Reuters building entrance in [[New York City]]]]		[[File:Reuters Building.jpg\|thumb\|Reuters building entrance in [[New York City]]]]
	Reuters has a policy of taking a "value-neutral approach" which extends to not using the word ''terrorist'' in its stories. The practice attracted criticism following the [[September 11 attacks]].<ref name="Moeller">{{Cite book\|last=Moeller\|first=Susan D.\|title=Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime\|publisher=Routledge\|year=2004\|isbn=978-0415339988\|editor-last=Allan\|editor-first=Stuart\|pages=[https://archive.org/details/reportingwarjour0000unse/page/68 68]\|chapter=A Moral Imagination: The Media's Response to the War on Terrorism\|editor-last2=Zelizer\|editor-first2=Barbie\|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/reportingwarjour0000unse/page/68}}</ref> Reuters' editorial policy states: "Reuters may refer without attribution to terrorism and counterterrorism in general, but do not refer to specific events as terrorism. Nor does Reuters use the word ''terrorist'' without attribution to qualify specific individuals, groups or events."<ref>''The Reuters Style Guide'' {{cite web\|title=Terrorism, terrorist - Handbook of Journalism\|url=http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=T#terrorism.2C_terrorist\|access-date=21 May 2019\|publisher=Reuters}}.</ref> By contrast, the [[Associated Press]] does use the term ''terrorist'' [[Definition of terrorism\|in reference to]] non-governmental organizations who carry out attacks on civilian populations.<ref name="Moeller" /> In 2004, Reuters asked a Canadian newspaper chain to remove Reuters' [[~~Byline\|bylines~~]], as the Canadian newspaper had edited Reuters articles to insert the word ''terrorist''. A spokesman for Reuters stated: "My goal is to protect my reporters and protect our editorial integrity."<ref>{{cite news\|last=Austen\|first=Ian\|date=20 September 2004\|title=Reuters Asks a Chain to Remove Its Bylines\|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/business/media/reuters-asks-a-chain-to-remove-its-bylines.html\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://archive.today/20191014063424/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/business/media/reuters-asks-a-chain-to-remove-its-bylines.html\|archive-date=14 October 2019}}</ref>		Reuters has a policy of taking a "value-neutral approach" which extends to not using the word ''terrorist'' in its stories. The practice attracted criticism following the [[September 11 attacks]].<ref name="Moeller">{{Cite book\|last=Moeller\|first=Susan D.\|title=Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime\|publisher=Routledge\|year=2004\|isbn=978-0415339988\|editor-last=Allan\|editor-first=Stuart\|pages=[https://archive.org/details/reportingwarjour0000unse/page/68 68]\|chapter=A Moral Imagination: The Media's Response to the War on Terrorism\|editor-last2=Zelizer\|editor-first2=Barbie\|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/reportingwarjour0000unse/page/68}}</ref> Reuters' editorial policy states: "Reuters may refer without attribution to terrorism and counterterrorism in general, but do not refer to specific events as terrorism. Nor does Reuters use the word ''terrorist'' without attribution to qualify specific individuals, groups or events."<ref>''The Reuters Style Guide'' {{cite web\|title=Terrorism, terrorist - Handbook of Journalism\|url=http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=T#terrorism.2C_terrorist\|access-date=21 May 2019\|publisher=Reuters}}.</ref> By contrast, the [[Associated Press]] does use the term ''terrorist'' [[Definition of terrorism\|in reference to]] non-governmental organizations who carry out attacks on civilian populations.<ref name="Moeller" /> In 2004, Reuters asked a Canadian newspaper chain to remove Reuters' [[byline]]s, as the Canadian newspaper had edited Reuters articles to insert the word ''terrorist''. A spokesman for Reuters stated: "My goal is to protect my reporters and protect our editorial integrity."<ref>{{cite news\|last=Austen\|first=Ian\|date=20 September 2004\|title=Reuters Asks a Chain to Remove Its Bylines\|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/business/media/reuters-asks-a-chain-to-remove-its-bylines.html\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://archive.today/20191014063424/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/business/media/reuters-asks-a-chain-to-remove-its-bylines.html\|archive-date=14 October 2019}}</ref>

	===Climate change reporting===		===Climate change reporting===
Line 142:		Line 142:

	===Funding by the UK Government===		===Funding by the UK Government===
	In November 2019 the [[Foreign and Commonwealth Office\|UK Foreign Office]] released archive documents confirming that it had provided funding to Reuters during the 1960s and 1970s so that Reuters could expand its coverage in the Middle East. An agreement was made between the [[Information Research Department\|Information Research Department (IRD)]] and Reuters for the [[HM Treasury\|UK Treasury]] to provide £350,000 over 4 years to fund Reuters' expansion. The UK government had already been funding the Latin American department of Reuters through a shell company; however, this method was discounted for the Middle East operation due to the accounting of the shell company looking suspicious, with the IRD stating that the company "already looks queer to anyone who might wish to investigate why such an inactive and unprofitable company continues to run."<ref name="BBC13012020">{{cite news\|last=Rosenbaum\|first=Martin\|date=13 January 2020\|title=How the UK secretly funded a Middle East news agency\|publisher=[[BBC]]\|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50637200\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200114084803/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50637200\|archive-date=14 January 2020}}</ref> Instead, the [[BBC]] was used to fund the project by paying for enhanced subscriptions to the news organisation, for which the Treasury would reimburse the BBC at a later date. The IRD acknowledged that this agreement would not give them editorial control over Reuters, although the IRD believed it would give them political influence over Reuters' work, stating "this influence would flow, at the top level, from Reuters' willingness to consult and to listen to views expressed on the results of its work.”<ref name="BBC13012020" /><ref>{{cite news\|last=Faulconbridge\|first=Guy\|others=Nick Tattersall (ed.)\|date=13 January 2020\|title=Britain secretly funded Reuters in 1960s and 1970s - documents\|work=[[Reuters]]\|editor-last=Bendeich\|editor-first=Mark\|url=https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-media/britain-secretly-funded-reuters-in-1960s-and-1970s-documents-idUKKBN1ZC20F\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200114124853/https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-media/britain-secretly-funded-reuters-in-1960s-and-1970s-documents-idUKKBN1ZC20F\|archive-date=14 January 2020}}</ref>		In November 2019 the [[Foreign and Commonwealth Office\|UK Foreign Office]] released archive documents confirming that it had provided funding to Reuters during the 1960s and 1970s so that Reuters could expand its coverage in the Middle East. An agreement was made between the [[Information Research Department\|Information Research Department (IRD)]] and Reuters for the [[HM Treasury\|UK Treasury]] to provide £350,000 over 4 years to fund Reuters' expansion. The UK government had already been funding the Latin American department of Reuters through a shell company; however, this method was discounted for the Middle East operation due to the accounting of the shell company looking suspicious, with the IRD stating that the company "already looks queer to anyone who might wish to investigate why such an inactive and unprofitable company continues to run."<ref name="BBC13012020">{{cite news\|last=Rosenbaum\|first=Martin\|date=13 January 2020\|title=How the UK secretly funded a Middle East news agency\|publisher=[[BBC]]\|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50637200\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200114084803/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50637200\|archive-date=14 January 2020}}</ref> Instead, the [[BBC]] was used to fund the project by paying for enhanced subscriptions to the news organisation, for which the Treasury would reimburse the BBC at a later date. The IRD acknowledged that this agreement would not give them editorial control over Reuters, although the IRD believed it would give them political influence over Reuters' work, stating "this influence would flow, at the top level, from Reuters' willingness to consult and to listen to views expressed on the results of its work.”<ref name="BBC13012020" /><ref>{{cite news\|last=Faulconbridge\|first=Guy\|others=Nick Tattersall (ed.)\|date=13 January 2020\|title=Britain secretly funded Reuters in 1960s and 1970s - documents\|work=Reuters\|editor-last=Bendeich\|editor-first=Mark\|url=https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-media/britain-secretly-funded-reuters-in-1960s-and-1970s-documents-idUKKBN1ZC20F\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200114124853/https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-media/britain-secretly-funded-reuters-in-1960s-and-1970s-documents-idUKKBN1ZC20F\|archive-date=14 January 2020}}</ref>

	==See also==		==See also==

Flying Bee: Created page with "{{Short description|International news agency based in London}} {{About|the Reuters news agency|the current parent company|Thomson Reuters|the former parent company prior to i..."

2021-08-07T14:29:59Z