Reuters' position on covering Trump

I think what's been said is admirable. What is being unsaid?

"[covering Trump] is an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world"

Hint: they already recognize that Trump is an authoritarian in all but name. Long live the King, I guess.

I've seen several people suggest that covering Trump is an unprecedented challenge which news orgs have no understanding of how to handle. This is a good reminder that this isn't true; even a presidency which is exceptional by American standards is well within the familiar scope of international news organizations.

One item on the Do list tickled me pink: > Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.

I'm excited to read what they print using this policy.

No mention that Thomson Reuters, owner of the Reuters news service, donated between $1m-$5m to Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...

Reuters is consistently my favorite news source. What I love about them is how they sell news to everyone, so they've got to make it as factual and unbiased as possible. Of course, like any news organization, they have a few biases, but I think that purely because of the position that they're in they are the least biased news source today.

They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al Jazeera, and the Times of India, so they can't cater to one crowd's political biases. I'm serious; all these news sources pay for Reuters articles.

And even if you don't like Reuters, you've got to respect the speed at which they get out correct news. Before the Twittersphere erupts, before CNN loses its mind, before the alerts on the radio, Reuters has it. And if they don't know something, they say that they don't know it. It can make for frustratingly light articles, but any time I'm annoyed how empty the article is I realize that if it was bigger it'd be fluff or unverified claims.