Reuters Watch

The U.K.-based Reuters news agency, over 150 years old, would have you believe it's the world's premiere wire service.

But not only is it biased, it's objectively on the other side.

Consider this interesting item taken from its very own website, in recounting its corporate history. It proudly states:

During both World Wars, Reuters came under pressure from the British government to serve British interests. In 1941 Reuters deflected this pressure by restructuring itself as a private company.

Well good for you, Reuters! Wouldn't want to serve those horrible, despicable "British interests" when Civilization hung in the balance against the onslaught of murderous Nazi hordes now, would you? Could being founded by a German have anything to do with that policy through both World Wars?

This position is defended as maintaining journalistic independence and integrity:

The Trust preserves Reuters independence and neutrality. The principles of the Trust were maintained and the power to enforce them was strengthened when Reuters became a public company in 1984.

As if neutrality in the face of pure Evil were a Virtue!

Would that they actually were neutral, though that would be bad enough.

This is just a smokescreen. Note that in the recent horrific attacks on innocent children in Russia, Reuters would only refer to the Islamic terrorists as an "armed gang", even stating hours after the attack that "it remained unclear who the attackers were."

The religious angle was not even mentioned, because clearly, that could not possibly have any bearing whatsoever on anything, could it?

Because to discuss such things might offend someone.

Because it might hurt someone's little feelings.

Oh, they are the very models of professionalism and restraint at Reuters!

Even though the attackers had already been said to be speaking Arabic, such mere hearsay could not be reported until, apparently, verified in person on the scene.

It couldn't even be spoken of as "reportedly."

No, nothing but pure, cold, hard facts for Reuters! No subjectivism such as using the word "terrorist" is tolerated by editorial policy, unless someone else said it, in which case it is placed in "scare quotes" as if to mock to concept or to distance one's self from it.

One wonders, with that kind of rigor, how they can bring themselves to report anything at all.

And yet... And yet...

When it comes to reporting from Gaza or Iraq, the basest hear-say and grossest editorializing is palmed off as actual objective reporting by non-neutral Arab stringers!

Is this a news story, or a fauning PR release for Hamas, dripping with glee over the blood of the innocent?

Hamas Militants Rebound Despite Israeli Blows
GAZA (Reuters) - With two human bombs from the West Bank, the Palestinian militant group Hamas has shown that Israel’s campaign to kill off its leadership has not broken its will or wherewithal to shed Israeli blood...the simultaneous suicide attacks on two buses that killed 16 people in the Israeli city of Beersheba on Tuesday dashed speculation that Hamas had lost the ability to strike in Israel, although their resolve was generally not in doubt. The Beersheba bombings shattered a nearly six-month lull in suicide attacks that had Israelis daring to think it was pretty safe to go about their lives once again as normal.

Yes, how dare they think it was "pretty safe", those subhuman Jews! The sheer impudence of them!

The byline? Nidal al-Mughrabi.

The wire service? Reuters.

Paragons of journalistic independence and virtue.

Minions of Evil.