All I can find at the link is:

From this source:

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/government-sends-notice-to-bbc-for-interviewing-convict-for-commercial-use-744553

Not complaining. I do look for other sources, but wondered what agenda(s) might be motivating Reuters. Who owns Reuters, do you know?

And, I am glad that this documentary is getting publicity, regardless of how "questionable" might be Reuters.

A Canadian company that started as Thomson Corporation and took the new name when they merged with Reuters in 2008.

http://thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/company-history.html

I don't consider Reuters a problem. "Embattled" is a pretty accurate depiction of HRC's position at the moment. It has nothing to do with whether or not she deserves the scrutiny; it's just an observation that she is having to marshal her forces to combat the questions and accusations flying around her head. Suggesting that someone is surrounded by the "enemy" (per the definition of the word) isn't a slur.

and intended to set a tone. I find journalism du jour distasteful and slanted, almost always.

(And, my observations are not intended to denigrate Eugene's OP or choice of sources, though I do find it interesting that you apparently feel defensive about my comments...)

Defensive would imply that I feel "attacked" by your comments. Possibly accurate if I worked for Reuters, I suppose, or even in journalism at large. Since I don't, it doesn't apply.

Note that I didn't think you were criticizing the OP - my comment was addressing the odd, though common on DU, deflection from the topic to the source of the topic. Sometimes it is relevant to do so; using tabloid magazines as sources is one valid reason to address the source. Reuters is hardly a tabloid and it isn't owned by some nefarious group intent on destroying democracy. It's not always right - but then it is just one source. When in doubt, wisdom suggests verification before reaction.

We seem to disagree on whether or not the use of the word 'embattled' is slanted. You apparently find it so, as far as I can tell. I see it as a not inappropriate descriptive adjective. Perhaps HRC wouldn't choose that word - though I suspect that in private conversation, she may express feeling somewhat under siege a good bit of the time these days. Who wouldn't?

I'm not sure why you dislike the word (and 'dislike' may be too strong a word); in the end it is neither here nor there. My initial reaction to your post remains the same - mild wonderment at the ease with which some will shift the conversation (successfully, given our interplay in a thread that has nothing to do with either Reuters or HRC) away from the topic at hand to one that they find - apparently - more interesting.