Reuters
Individual Analyses of Bias in Reuters Articles
In addition to conducting full-scale reviews of media outlets for overall bias — using methodologies such as Blind Bias Surveys and Editorial Reviews — AllSides sometimes evaluates the bias of an individual news article for bias.
The AllSides editorial team has detected common types of media bias in some individual Reuters articles, including word choice bias, bias by placement, slant, and spin. Read our analysis of each story on the AllSides Perspectives blog:
Type of Content
Approved Story
1
Format
Region
News Item Format
Standard
Image Caption
REUTERS/Bonnie Cash
Autocurated
0
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared skeptical of a challenge on free speech grounds to how President Joe Biden's administration encouraged social media platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID-19.
The justices heard oral arguments in the administration's appeal of a lower court's preliminary injunction constraining how White House and certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users, sued the administration. They argued that the government's actions violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook (META.O), opens new tab, YouTube (GOOGL.O), opens new tab, and Twitter, now called X.
The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.