So what's your point in the big picture Sooner?  You come here and instead of discussing issues, you choose to focus on the perceived Conservative leanings here?  You do realize the vast majority of Media, including Entertainment and Social Media is Far Left Progressive, Democrat biased, right?  Do you not recognize that?

What's your objective?  To prove all of our positions invalid because we are all just Right Wing Nutjobs?  Can you actually discuss the content of the issues at any point?

My objective was to be open-minded and dig further to see why some of you thought Reuters was left-biased, as if they were untrustworthy and akin to CNN/NBC/etc. when I hadn't seen much evidence to support such a claim.  I am fully aware that several of the most vocal on this forum are heavily Conservative/Republican, which I don't have a problem with in the least.  I just didn't see evidence that Reuters was left- or right-leaning in any significant amount, so I asked for examples of such.  I also didn't make mention of whether your (or anyone else's) positions were invalid. 

In return, I got told to find support for someone else's argument via google.  Then, a vague article from damn near 2 decades ago with no references in the article.  Finally, I supplied the first two headlines I came across on Reuters which didn't seem to show much, if any, bias toward one political philosophy or another only to be told that the exclusion of one word that they would have preferred means that the whole article is left-wing liberal slanted.  So, in my efforts to uncover some knowledge about Reuters being liberal-biased, I still remain unconvinced.  Finally, I absolutely agree that the majority of media outlets are liberal-biased, no question.  I just didn't lump Reuters into that category (regardless of which parent company owns which media company).

For whatever reason, the go-to argument for several members here who don't toe the conservative line on every event/circumstance are automatically labeled full-fledged liberal Democrats/Socialists.  I'm not sure I understand that sentiment since everyone falls somewhere different on the political scale, it isn't just "you're a conservative" or "you're a liberal".  It's almost hostile at times.

Let's look at this paragraph:

 The author is making a statement of fact, when in reality it should have read "The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted in December to impeach Trump for allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential election". 

 Since the trial has yet to happen, the President does indeed have the presumption of innocence.  The article leads the reader to believe the President is already guilty.

No, it IS a statement of fact.  They voted to impeach him for pressuring Ukraine on the Biden incident.  That is what they impeached him for.  Whether you want to argue if the impeachment was substantiated or not, given the evidence provided, is a different issue.  It would actually be right-biased if they included the “allegedly” modified because it would alter the facts.  He has been impeached by the House, whether truly guilty or not.  When Pelosi finally decides to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, it won’t say he was impeached for “allegedly” pressuring Ukraine. The Senate then gets to hold a trial to confirm.

 Then we have this thrown in at the end:

 Seems the author is attempting to infer that the latest air strike was done as a stunt by the President to delay the impeachment trial.  However, anyone paying attention to the latest events in Iraq and Iran would see right through this.

 Also, the last 2 paragraphs really have nothing to do with the basis of the article, and are thrown in to discredit Trump to the reader.

There’s nothing that discredits Trump in the last two paragraphs nor does it say anything about a publicity stunt.  You’re reading into something that isn’t there.  Again, it’s a statement of fact that Clinton also had ordered military action during the impeachment proceedings which had little effect on the outcome.  All that says is that the military action from Trump will likely cause little delay or disruption to the current impeachment proceedings.  The link between the latest military engagement was made because the updated impeachment statements from the aforementioned Senators was given after/in response to the press release of the Iranian attack.


Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!

You can find many examples.  Maybe you just don't want to.  It is up to you to counter my claim, or it stands.

ok, fine. One financial and one political (Trump impeachment).  From today.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-barkin/fed-officials-kick-off-2020-with-optimistic-view-of-u-s-economy-idUSKBN1Z21N4

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/u-s-senate-in-stalemate-over-how-to-proceed-with-trump-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1Z21W3

Seems pretty neutral to me, I'm not picking up on much of anything right or left.

I see evidence of it all the time, but I do not save the articles to some file as it is so blatantly obvious, only a Leftist would not acknowledge it.  If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and do your own research.  Reuters and AP are part of the mainstream media who is obviously leftist biased.  Sorry, you can't support your thinly veiled claim they are not. 

Just for you. 

https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/reuters-anti-american-bias/

While I appreciate the sort-of evidence . . . it's a story from 2003 (16.5 years ago) which doesn't have links to the original source story or anything else.  Have some more recent examples?  I mean, if we're going back into the early 2000's, we can probably get some examples of where CNN wasn't left-wing, lol.

I personally never noticed a Reuters bias, but I never really paid them particular attention.  According to several sites I checked, Reuters is one of the least biased sites. Of course, that opinion is coming from biased sites.

But your request for examples is awfully difficult to fulfill.  How would you even attempt to do that?  Would you count pro-left vs pro-right articles?  Would you just look for "fake news" taking one side or the other.  Would you count the times they DON"T print something that is negative about "their" side or positive about the "other" side?   Even a biased site can occasionally print an honest article.

They may put two articles side by side to look fair:
They might display an article about a politician on their side convicted of littering and a politician on the other side killing their homosexual lover.  Both are true, right?

I would expect, that if one were to make the claim that a news source (or whatever) is biased "left" or "right", they would be able to supply examples which demonstrate such a consistent bias in their reporting.  I can't prove a null, nor should the onus be on me to prove what someone else is claiming.  I just asked for examples.

I generally view Reuters as neutral, simply because the news they report doesn't usually have much, if any, opinion infused into  it.  They generally just write the facts with little fluff as to the implications of whatever event may have on future endeavors. 

AP, like Reuters and the others, is a LEFITST BIASED, anti Trump source.  I won't call them a "news" source any longer.

Not necessarily arguing, but can you cite some examples of how Reuters is "leftist" or "Anti-Trump"?

I can appreciate the "freedom" being returned for light bulb choice.  However, I can't think of a reason to have incandescent bulbs anymore.  I have converted just about every fixture to LEDs and love the instant-on like incandescent bulbs, but the long life of LEDs as well as better range of color selections.  I have no need for "heat" from a bulb, and the CFLs were barely better than the bulbs they replaced.  Especially love the outdoor PAR flood lamps with LEDs.  Those incandescent and halogen bulbs got HOT and burned out quickly.  Haven't touched/replaced a single LED bulb I've installed so far, some going on 3-4 years.