Scientific studies that are outliers or in the end don’t reach a causal conclusion or can’t really be practically applied but at least appear to buck current knowledge are often fodder for headlines. When in reality they shouldn’t be.September 5, 3012Peter BohanEditorReuters America News Service/Syndicate3 Times SquareNew York, NY 10036USAVIA EMAILDear Mr. Bohan,
You might remember about a month ago Reuters published a poorly sourced article filled with inaccuracies about Alaska pollock that was based on an erroneous Greenpeace press release. Of course we called Reuters on this issue and as it turns out so did the At-Sea Processors Association and the Genuine Alaska Pollock producers. Objectivity and accuracy in reporting about seafood is a concern shared by the entire seafood community.
According to the Reuters blog that tracks and responds to reader reactions to mistakes, none of its 2,500 reporters have made a mistake that's been called too its attention in the last 6 days.
Wow, that's all I can say.
"All of Thomson Reuters will also uphold the Reuters Trust Principles of integrity, independence and freedom from bias. This commitment is more than a source of pride. It is the core of who we are," that's from the Reuters code of ethics.
But this week when we asked Reuters to have a look at an article that we thought might just have violated its stated commitment to integrity we were greeted with deafening and defensive... silence.