So I was prompted by Google to read a headline by Reuters News that in my opinion appeared to be made up in an attempt to regain respect they once had in the world of delivering the News. Forgetting where along the way I lost faith in Reuters' reporting, I decided to ask Google's AI (Artificial Intelligence) and got this for an answer:
+13
Several instances during the COVID-19 pandemic led to accusations of bias in Reuters' reporting, most notably regarding the origin of the virus, its reporting on China, and the framing of US policy
. A key challenge for all news outlets was navigating a fast-moving, politically charged crisis with limited information. Politicization and origin of COVID-19
- Wuhan lab data: A November 2021 study by Harvard's Shorenstein Center examined media coverage of the WHO's investigation into the virus's origins. It specifically cited a Reuters video headlined "China refused to provide WHO team with raw data on early COVID cases, team member says". The study notes that the quote came from a member who said, "we would have liked, I guess, to have seen the raw data" in response to a leading question. Another team member later claimed their own quotes were "twisted" by the media. Critics noted that Reuters and other outlets uncritically amplified the claim that China was stonewalling the investigation, while other data was provided.
- Framing of China: A separate study analyzing news headlines from Reuters and the Chinese state-controlled outlet Xinhua found that Reuters' reporting on China and the virus was mostly "balanced, objective, and impartial" in its headlines. However, other analyses found a "generalized negativity bias" against China in Western media coverage, including Reuters. In one case, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Reuters of "ideological bias" in its coverage.
- Conflicting narratives: While Reuters reported on U.S. intelligence agencies stating there was no direct evidence for the lab leak theory, the outlet's reporting also reflected the broader international conversation in which Chinese officials promoted the alternate theory that the virus originated in the US.
- US political divide
- Presidential criticism: A study in the European Journal of Journalism compared coverage from Reuters, CNN, and Fox News during the early months of the pandemic in 2020. The researchers found that towards the end of February, Reuters began to employ "language that conveyed criticism of the president's performance and questioned the efficacy of his response". The study cited phrases like "mixed messages" and "hunts for options" as indications of this critical tone.
- Partisan vs. objective reporting: In contrast, the study described Fox News's approach as more optimistic in its apparent support for the president, while Reuters and CNN were more critical. A separate, independent fact-checking review in 2021 noted that Reuters' fact-checking section appeared to have a slight "lean left" bias, but still rated the overall fact-checking section as "Center".
- COVID-19 vaccine reporting
- Fact-check framing: Reuters, in its role as a fact-checker, addressed numerous claims related to COVID-19 vaccines and side effects. However, the framing of these fact-checks has also been criticized. For example, some articles focused on debunking misleading interpretations of death data without fully exploring the legitimate concerns about side effects or compensation for injury.
- VAERS data: Reuters published fact-checks to address misleading claims using data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These articles stated that vaccine side effects were not necessarily connected to immunization and that the vaccines were safe, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other evidence. Critics could point to this as potentially biased against vaccine skepticism, arguing it prematurely dismissed public concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment