It's a quote from an individual, which is rightly unedited regardless of what propaganda that specific individual is trying to put out. Reuters does the same with US politicians who are obviously lying, or any other statements from people. It's not their job to only share "what is truth" but to share different perspectives regardless of their biases.
Usually subjective opinions are left for opinion-pieces, which that article isn't.
Another example from the same article, first they write:
> "The strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a televised address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
Then afterwards they write:
> However, Mohammad Manan Raisi, a lawmaker for Qom, near Fordow, told the semi-official Fars news agency the facility had not been seriously damaged.
That's how real journalism works, find people with perspectives from both sides of the coin, and let them say theirs. Obviously one of them are correct, but it's not Reuter who will put down the foot and tell you what to believe.
Journalists should absolutely fact-check the claims they put in their articles. If they don't, you end up with a president like Trump, shamelessly lying anytime he speaks, and no one to counter his obvious lies. This, is journalism malpractice in my book.
Not saying Reuters does a particularly bad job at that btw.
Sure, but that isn't a claim the journalist put in the article, it's a quote from a government official, the journalist is reporting on what the person said. Editing or hiding quotes because you don't agree with it, feels more like journalism malpractice than letting quotes be unedited.
The best of journalism is about presenting verifiable facts, especially when those facts are inconvenient or suppressed by the powerful. Good journalism is not about providing equal forums to all sides to spew propaganda in equally metered time.
> Good journalism is not about providing equal forums to all sides to spew propaganda in equally metered time
No one claimed this. I'm merely stating the obvious that no one is 100% impartial here, and Reuters is reporting based on what they've been able to verify.
> The best of journalism is about presenting verifiable facts
The fact is that person X said Y, and that's what they're reporting. It's not original reporting about what the quote is about, it's a quote from a person, and that they're sharing that quote means they've verified that it was said by that person.
They're sharing quotes from politicians of two countries currently being pulled into war with each other, of course most of it will be propaganda. Neither of what you read from politicians right now is in earnest and a willingness for dialogue, it's all to pull you in their direction so you support their side.
Both sides are trying to goad everyone into their side, this is obvious. But again, it is not up to independent news to report for one side more than the other, this is why quotes from both sides are unedited, as it should be if you're for independent news.
> with one objectively correct answer and one crazy one
None of this is happening with the discussions and news-reporting from today and yesterday, it's all propaganda designed to make you feel one way or another. There is no "objective truth" to be found here, just two(three) nations who want to destroy each other, having a competition who can sound the most "reasonable" in order to justify whatever comes next.
> "There is no "objective truth" to be found here"
Of course there's objective truth here. This is a technical question with an uncontroversial technical answer (and that quoted physicist told us the answer).
> no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots
is a accurate picture of Iran's intention behind moving the uranium or not, is not something an expert of any sector could say for sure, unless they somehow have insider information. Not sure why you'd believe so.
