That doesn't address the point - many mainstream 'news' outlets work by rewriting stories syndicated from Reuters and AP - not by having their own reporters.
The comment I was responding to was attacking the wsws for not being 'news' because it doesn't have it's own reporters.
It's perfectly reasonable to criticize it for having a political stance that you don't credit, but I don't see a case for somehow categorizing it as 'not news' when its practices are the same as many traditional news outlets, just with a less mainstream perspective.
Note: I'm not supporting whatever wsws's stance might be - I'm just pointing out that much of mainstream news is similar in how it operates.
I actually have no problem with people citing the World Socialist Website. That being said, the WSWS offers "Marxist analysis" of the news whereas Reuters and AP, although they may offer analysis, focus on objective reporting of the facts as opposed to analysis. Take a look at Reuters "trust principles" on their website. One principle is: "That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts." Now, consider the mission of the WSWS: "The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system. Its aim is the establishment of world socialism."
I think it is clear why AP and Reuters citations will be more widely accepted than sources that are inclined to political bias and activism.
You're still missing the point. I'm not comparing wsws to Reuters or the AP. I'm comparing it to the news outlets that take reuters and AP reports as sources which they then use to write their own articles.
There is "news" and there is "analysis" -- if you want to cite facts don't cite analysis from a publication that has a clear and stated bias. Usually the way AP and Reuters works is clients run what they write or "analyze" what they write. Why cite analysis if you want facts? Not trying to be adversarial here, just trying to understand what you are saying
All publications have a strong bias. Isn't it better to cite from those that state their bias clearly so that the reader is better able to interpret what they are reading, than from those who mislead by pretending to be 'unbiased'?
