[deogeo]

Pay attention to the language of the article:

> two years after the EU executive proposed changes to protect the bloc’s cultural heritage and ensure that publishers, broadcasters and artists are remunerated fairly.

> dissenting countries said the proposed changes could hinder innovation and hurt the bloc’s competitiveness

The first statement is presented as fact, the second as something that was merely 'said'. 'Censorship', 'freedom of expression', or 'chilling effects' are entirely absent from the article.

[mancerayder]

I see your point but the full sentence seems to me (to my reading) simply to mention the stated purpose of the legislation. The phrase after "to" I read not as what Reuters stamped as the Correct or Real reason, but what the legislators' implied reasons were:

Negotiators from the EU countries, the European Parliament and the European Commission sealed a deal last week, two years after the EU executive proposed changes to protect the bloc’s cultural heritage and ensure that publishers, broadcasters and artists are remunerated fairly.

What's after "to" is the reason for the legislation. What, the reason for the legislation is fully subjective? And then they mentioned the dissenting voices.

I don't know. Reuters might be biased, but I don't see this as making a strong case.

[deogeo]

I have no idea if Reuters is deliberately biased, and I don't think this article shows that. It's just lazy inertia-driven reporting. But inertia-driven reporting is biased, even if the reporter tried to be neutral. It usually ends up subconsciously treating official sources as truth, and everything else as mere claims. But it's what it doesn't report that tilts the story most heavily. Industry PR and politicians give very different answers from e.g. software freedom activists.