First off the Reuters article did indicate she stated that there was no effect on the votes.
No, it didn't. I quoted the full article (because it was so short) at the moment that I read it. That's how news agencies work, they are not newspapers that have a closing/deadline for publishing, instead, they publish when the news is happening, and add or correct after other reporters or sources get new/updated information to improve the initial report. Chance has it that Jeff's quote was also different from when you read it for the first time. You can easily verify that for new just published reports. After a short period, the article will be expanded/updated/corrections made.
BTW, 'Reuters' is classified as one of the "Least biased" information sources, because it takes some time to verify the initial information and they try to avoid potentially colored/biased classifiers. So when other sources have a different view, they will adapt to a more weighted/neutral take on things. Their business model depends on reliability.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. the current article ends with: QUOTE "(
Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Writing by Phil Stewart;
Editing by James Dalgleish)". By the time you read it, more changes may have been made.
