I honestly wasn't looking for dirt, or what have you, on Reuters. Something that would place Reuters in the "suspect" catagory of news sources. And that's the truth. As happens I crossed an article that referenced an article, and rather than rely on a interpretation of the article I followed the link to the original article, as I often try to do. The original article was written by a guy who worked for years at Reuters, Science and Technology Correspondent. Neal Winton. The article is at a site I have never visited, or knew existed. The Daily Sceptic. It looks like an interesting website, I'm sort of naturally a sceptic, so I might check it out more often in the future, number of interesting looking articles there I have yet to read. I'm too dumb to know how to open 2 windows on my phone, so I'll attempt to go back and forth to copy and paste a bit, and also provide a link. A pain in the ass, but here we go...
The article is titled,
When I Covered Climate Change for Reuters I Thought CO2 Was Certainly to Blame for Rising Temperatures. I Was Wrong
In the article he writes, "I have a particular interest in
Reuters’ attitude because I spent 32 years there as a reporter and editor. The global news agency’s traditional insistence on high standards in reporting makes this liaison with CCN seem questionable."
"Questionable", "suspect"? Same thing if not close cousins? Anyway, take a look, if you wish. I think a healthy amount of scepticism is often a very good thing.
Journalist Neil Winton says that when he covered climate change for Reuters he thought CO2 was to blame for rising temperatures, but now he believes the scientific evidence shows he was wrong.
dailysceptic.org