The source for news

The most objective source for news? Reuters.

Reuters doesn’t make their money selling news to average consumers. Their core business is selling news (and financial analytics) to institutional investors (think large corporations, asset managers, and even government entities). That means the have a vested interest in reporting raw facts, and the only angle they’ll place on it is how the news might affect global markets. If they report something that turns out to be bullshit, they’ll lose their core customer base. Objective facts matter more than anything else to Reuters; they literally cannot afford to put a spin on anything.
But it’s dry. So you don’t like Reuters, you like your sensationalism and bias. Am I right or am I right.

K: but Reuters news won’t allow the right to have their biases
confirmed, and that is the point of watching faux news or bitchute,
to have one’s prejudices and biases confirmed… I mean, why else would one watch the news?


Is this supposed to be an echo chamber? If that’s the case, I don’t want to disturb.

K: if you have something to say, by all means, say it… I have no problem with anyone,
ANYONE saying their piece… so go for it.


Try Associated Press .