Reuters has zero journalism ethics. Their article on India crypto ban based on “anonymous sources” completely contradicts the Finance Minister’s statements from 2 days ago.

Barely 2 days ago, the Indian Finance minister said that they will "explore a window for cryptocurrencies.:" what a "window" means is anyone's guess. However watching the full interview and her take on crypto, she seemed to suggest that a full ban was not on the cards and there will be an opportunity for people with bitcoin/crypto. She specifically mentioned Bitcoin and mentioned that fintech startups (like crypto exchanges) should have a place. (Link to the tweet with vide in comments)

However just today Reuters has published a story that India will ban cryptocurrencies completely, and to back its story it has cited "anonymous govt officials". This story is a 180 degree switch from the position expressed by the Finance minister. Even if the story is true, how can govt officials directly contradict the statement of the Finance Minister of the country, the highest position of power when it comes to the country's finance laws?

In their article, Reuters dont even mention the Finance minister's comments from 2 days ago. Isnt this journalism ethics to paint a full picture? If a policy topic is being discussed in an article, the finance minister's recent comments are directly relevant. But for some reason Reuters choose to ignore FM's comments and instead paint the full article on their anonymous sources. Because if they mentioned the Finance ministers comments, the article will contract itself. So they have blatantly left out Finance ministers comments, and instead choose to run an article based on anonymous sources that no one can verify. Probably to create panic in the market.

Indian media especially has been running hit pieces for almost 2 years. Every year you can find some major news publication quoting anonymous sources that a ban will be put in place soon.

This kind of journalism without any ethics or morals is really pathetic.