Man I'm pissed! I just wrote the reuters editor a bitchy email about one of the reuter's edge articles that covered the collapse of the DOHA talks in Cancun.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3452759

quote:

I recentely read this reuter's edge article by Jeremy Smith, and I was appalled by its bias and one-sided coverage of the failure of the latest DOHA talks in Cancun. The article only quoted European trade chief Pascal Lamy and seemingly cast blame on the collapse of the talks on the United States with the intent of avoiding agricultural subsidy reform: "The United States will no longer feel pressure to reform its subsidy programs following the failure of world trade talks in Mexico, harming Europe and key developing countries, Europe's trade chief said on Tuesday." "We in Europe are going to lose out...because the reform of the American agricultural system will now not take place as fast as it might have done, which is bad news for our farmers." Preposterous! And what of the harm to the rest of the world and to the United States when it comes to the EU's overexcessive agricultural farm subsidies? When comparing the nations, the EU and Japan almost double the United States when it comes to subsidies as a % of value of production. In 2002, Japan had almost 60%, the EU had 35%, and the US had less than 20% in farm subsidies. As a matter of fact, if you had taken the time to do some fair and balanced reporting, you would have reported that the American delegation went ino the summit proposing to eliminate tariffs on all manufactured and consumer goods by 2015, and to cut agricultural tariffs by 76% over five years. It is widely known that the EU, and especially France and Italy, have taken a hardline stance in refusing to cut subsidies to their farmers. I'm somewhat surprised that you failed to mention even WHY the talks failed to begin with, the 1996 Singapore issues that the poor, developing countries did not want to adopt for fear of being hit with trade sanctions. Who were the main proponents of the Singapore issues and refused to yield any flexibility to the poor countries? You guessed it, the EU and Japan. I always thought of reuters as one of the last bastions of unbiased media reporting in the world today. Once again I suppose I was disillusioned into thinking that the fox news effect was merely confined to american media.

___________________
Retro ...

GRRR! Occrider a friken hate articles like that!!!

If something goes bad, "Blame the Americans", we see that again and again these days even if it is not true, such as this case. Shameful this was done by reuters.. but the British these days seem more and more biased then the Americans I think (look at BBC).

For them it is simply an unconscience understanding that if something goes bad in the world, somehow it is the USA's fault... GRRR

I'm glad you took the time to reply to Reuters.. I hope they will give you a response. I once did the same for Amnesty who in a report clearly was biased against Israel, being anti-Israel instead of being pro-human rights. I hate it when organizations do not stick to their purpose. Reuters needs to tell you the facts, not be PC, or say its the USA fault.