Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is my great honour to address this gathering here today in Beijing.

Reuters association with China began in the 19th century, when the agency began supplying financial and commodities information to clients here.

By the 1930’s, Shanghai was our Asian headquarters.

Today, our offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong provide vibrant newsgathering for our global clients who demand information about this vital economy and provide centres for Chinese clients whose need for reliable and instant information about the world’s finances is intense.

From the beginning, Reuters Chinese name was important. 路透社 – the 透 that is the key second character is part of several important words, each of which is central to our mission

“Penetrating”, “thorough” and “transparent” – these are the concepts that we bring to our reporting; these are the concepts that media in China as elsewhere in the world must strive for.

The financial crisis of the beginning of the 21st century has proven again that the Media’s role in providing the transparency necessary for a healthy market economy is vital.

While this concept has been part of Reuters name and our mission for more than a century and a half, the world of course is much different from when we moved reports using carrier pigeons and the telegraph.

The old world of national markets, operating within limited and largely ring- fenced pools of capital is dead. In the 21st century, financial markets are global and integrated-- but still fiercely competitive.

Investments shift, at the touch of a trading keyboard, from one market to another, and from one asset class to another. No national government any longer has complete control of economic policy, and no company, person or organisation has unchallenged access to available capital. Financial markets are global.

Commenting on the challenges this environment creates for China’s financial sector, Premier Wen Jiabao has said:

“It is a long-term task to build a capital market that is transparent, efficient, rational in structure, perfect in function and safe in operation.”

Efficiently informed and transparent financial markets are also healthy, sound, orderly and internationally competitive financial markets. These were the lessons of the 1997 Asian crisis, and are once again the lessons of the current global crisis.

The role of financial media is central to delivering the objectives of informed and transparent financial markets, as well as the social stability that depends upon economic success.

For China, the increasing internationalisation of financial markets has at least two dimensions relevant to financial information.

First, Chinese markets participants and investors need to be efficiently informed about foreign markets, while second, their non-Chinese counterparts overseas need to be efficiently informed about China.

Mutual benefit and success depend upon this reciprocal relationship.

It is noteworthy, for example, that China has permitted more Chinese funds to invest in international equities than it has permitted foreign investors to invest in the Chinese stock market.
Accurate and comprehensive information about foreign financial markets is therefore particularly critical for markets professionals in China.

To provide some examples about the increasing global linkage of financial markets news:

US consumption data has become a reliable proxy indicator of the volume of China’s exports, with direct relevance to stock market prices in China.

Likewise, the announcement by China last November that it was to launch a 4 trillion yuan stimulus package caused sharp rises on stock markets not only in China, but all around the world.

Recent news that China has been taking action against polluting metals smelters caused prices on the London Metals Exchange to soar.

Even a seemingly low-key announcement such as China offering subsidies to producers of solar power equipment can cause major stock market rises for shares in non-Chinese companies active in this field.

The integration of China into global financial markets presents numerous challenges for financial media, on which the financial markets depend. But it also presents some challenges for Chinese policy makers to create the optimal conditions in which financial media can operate to respond efficiently to the needs of both Chinese and non-Chinese markets professionals and investors.

Let me respectfully suggest a few areas where China could take steps to facilitate the quality of financial information and reinforce the contribution of financial media:

• Greater discipline around the public release of official statistics:

Economic statistics are, of course, of critical relevance to financial markets. Still too frequently in China, rumours about statistics circulate for several days before their official release. Often the rumours later turn out to have been correct. Those “insiders” with access to the rumours enjoy unfair trading advantages over those who do not.

The correct policy response is not to punish the media for reporting the rumours, but instead to ensure that the processes and safeguards around the release of statistics are tightened. Indeed, where rumours are influencing the market, the financial media has a duty to report them --as rumours-- so that the market as a whole, and not just a section of insiders, is informed, understands why the market is moving in a particular direction, and can take appropriate action to safeguard their investments.

It might, for example, be advisable to shorten the time span between the production of the statistics, and/or limit still further those with privileged access to the data before it is released.

• Enhancing the information disclosure policies of government ministries and official agencies that originate information relevant to financial markets.

There has already been some good progress here, with many more high-level news briefings and press conferences by ministerial agencies than there used to be.

I also welcome the initiatives of those government departments that have adopted web release of their information.

I applaud those that have gone one step further to alert reporters to news announcements with helpful text messages. But there is still further to go in extending these examples of best more widely until they become the norm across government.

• Aligning the treatment of Chinese and Foreign Journalists

It is important to gain greater recognition and acceptance of the important role of foreign financial journalists in China. There continues to be insufficient recognition and understanding of the important role that they have in underpinning China’s own economic goals of maximising foreign investment in China.

Journalists working for foreign media are still too often excluded or granted a lower level of access at key meetings.

As Chinese financial journalism professionalises further, I look forward to mutually beneficial competition. I also look forward to Chinese nationals having full careers within foreign media organisations in China. My fervent wish is that one day soon Reuters financial news editor in China will be a Chinese national – one step on that person’s path to be global editor in chief!

Addressing this gathering just a few days after China’s 60th National Day, it’s important to reflect not only on the challenges but on the progress China has made.

When I was Reuters China bureau chief from 1991 to 1994, there was almost no transparency; statistics could not be relied on; interviews were rare; the state of the economy was a mystery.

Today we report on China’s economy with the same intensity and professionalism as we report on any G7 economy. Our clients demand that, and, increasingly, we are able to provide that.

It is important to note as well that transparency must be a reciprocal virtue.

The news media must also be transparent about its standards and its methods.

This has been particularly true during the current financial turmoil – the media industry was in its own crisis at the same time as it was reporting on the financial downturn; our sources and our readers were in crisis, too, and this meant that our stories were watched extremely carefully and people were quick to complain about anything they didn’t like.

I am proud that most of our reporting was excellent, but those times when we didn’t get it right it was vital to correct our errors swiftly and publicly.

Maintaining our trust with our audience is fundamental to our mission as a news service. Reporting truthfully, reporting accurately, correcting errors, obeying our standards are all vital and can’t be compromised, especially not in the heat of a major and complex story.

We’ve learned important lessons from this period.

One lesson was that our standards needed to be constantly examined and sometimes strengthened.

Another is that transparency is rewarded by trust.

This year we put our entire 500+ page Handbook of Journalism free online for anyone and everyone to read and comment on – we welcome that scrutiny from around the world.

Where our standards are good and we live up to them, we want the attendant praise.

Where we need to improve, or where we fail to live up to our ideals, we want the criticism.

That should be the attitude that we in the media should strive for.

I believe Journalism at its best is a mirror, exposing back to society a true and brutally honest picture of what is going on.

When we fail at that, when our picture is not clear or at all distorted, we deserve to be criticised. We must strive to be that perfect mirror.
But for societies and economies to truly work, to be effective and to be healthy, they need to look into that mirror unflinchingly and honestly.

That is where the virtue of transparency comes in.

That is why companies and government departments and government officials need to be ready to be open. That is why they need to take interviews and to reveal figures. That is why the instinct for secrecy needs to be resisted.

That is why all involved need to help the media help society, by accepting that while openness, transparency and accountability may lead to momentary discomfort and sometimes embarrassment, they are ultimately worthwhile and, in fact, are a precondition to a truly healthy, stable and successful system.

Similarly, a commitment to these practices is also a precondition for China’s development of healthy, sound and internationally competitive financial markets that protect domestic investors and encourage foreign investors to place their capital.

Thank you.

As early as the 12th century, the image of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants came into discourse to mean that all knowledge advances based on the discoveries of the past.

In academia and in journalism that notion has been coupled with the doctrine of attribution – you need to acknowledge the shoulders you’re standing on, to give due credit but also to allow others to search out that perch and see if their view from it is any different.

To me, the current debate about the “Link Economy” in content terms is about:

Are you part of the conversation?
Are you adding to the debate or just playing postman and passing others’ views on?
Are you adding value and …
Are you getting rewarded for adding the value you do?

As head of a journalistic army of 2,700 professionals I obviously have an intense vested interest in ensuring that their work is valuable to readers and valued by them.

Part of that involves ensuring that they are in the centre of the action and that they fill their reports with their expertise and experience. Part of that involves ensuring that they are part of the debate, that their reports inform the debate and that the debate, in turn, informs their future reporting.

Our standards on sourcing have always emphasized the importance of giving proper credit, even when quoting from competitors. And, of course, we expect the same in return.

In the writing we do specifically for the web we’re as open to outbound linking as we are to the inbound (see Felix Salmon for some good examples). Much of our other writing doesn’t currently use outbound links because of the particular ecosystem of our professional products, for which a lot of it is specifically written. But that, I am sure, will change over time.

The real danger in not being extremely open to linking, it seems to me, is that by moving yourself out of the mainstream debate you risk irrelevancy.

There will be other shoulders to stand on.

Those shoulders will be the ones that provide the lift.

Those shoulders will be the ones that will help advance knowledge and debate.

The fact that today the crediting can be done with a hyperlink is to me intellectually no different than the use of an academic footnote or a traditional journalistic “…according to XYZ in an interview”. It’s just better, because it’s fast, direct and creates an instant chain of knowledge.

What’s more interesting to me is what one does with the link, not the link itself.

I have a passing interest in the link or retweet that simply passes a nugget along.

I have a bit more interest when the linker or retweeter extracts real gold that was hidden in the original and gives it more prominence.

I have a lot more interest when the link or retweet uses the original as a jumping off point for argument, debate, or development.

That’s when it gets interesting.

And that’s when we, too, stand on that tower of giant shoulders people started visualising in the 12th century.

The global economic crisis is the biggest story in modern times and a record audience is turning to Reuters for information you can trust. I share with you some changes we've brought to Reuters.com and Reuters.co.uk to help you understand the financial turmoil and benefit from the expertise of our 2,550 journalists around the globe. You'll notice more headlines from our financial correspondents and more video interviews with business newsmakers. We've added a new Economy section, increased our coverage of regulation and will soon relaunch our small business and environment pages.

Our Great Debate section has added more financial commentary from our growing team of Reuters columnists, with technology expert Eric Auchard among the writers joining James Saft, John Kemp and Bernd Debusmann. We also offer more graphics for better insight into the financial markets. And we continue to add specialist blogs, with Hedge Hub providing a place for readers to discuss the hedge fund industry with journalists such as Laurence Fletcher.

Of course, we know you rely on us for news of the political and cultural trends that influence our personal and professional worlds. You'll find full coverage of the new U.S. administration on our Barack Obama: First 100 Days page, while pages ranging from Afghanistan to Wine can be found in our Topics section. Our India edition has a page dedicated to the national elections there. Bureaus in China, Japan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories have blogs to share their insights and we offer more video from our entertainment reporters. China and Japan have added native language blogs on their local editions.

There will be many more changes throughout 2009 that will help you navigate the unrivaled breadth and depth of Thomson Reuters news and data.  We look forward to unveiling them and to hearing your ideas on what else you would like to see on Reuters.com.

Sincerely,

David Schlesinger

Editor-in-Chief

Reuters News

Original Post Text:
I've been tweeting from the World Economic Forum, using the microblogging platform Twitter to discuss the mundane (describing crepuscular darkness of the Swiss Alps at 5 a.m.) or the interesting (live tweeting from presentations).

Is it journalism?

Is it dangerous?

Is it embarrassing that my tweets even beat the Reuters newswire?

Am I destroying Reuters standards by encouraging tweeting or blogging?

(These aren't rhetorical questions - I've been challenged by many people who would answer those questions as No, Yes, Yes, and Yes! I answer them as Yes, Potentially, No and No.)

The foundation of what we do as a company and as a news service are the Reuters Trust Principles.

While it is vital to read the five as a whole, I take the fifth ("That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products of Thomson Reuters so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business") as an imperative for continual innovation and experimentation.

I have no idea what journalism will look like in five years except that it will be different than it is now. That's a great thing, I believe.

I have little patience for those who cling to sentimental (and frankly inaccurate) memories of the good old halcyon days of journalism that were somehow purer and better than a world where tweets and blogs compete with news wires and newspapers.

Bring it on, I say!

Journalism is one of the great self-declared professions and crafts.  I am a journalist because I said I was one more than two decades ago and have spent the years since working on my abilities. I am not one because I am somehow anointed with a certificate or an exam result.

Journalism is ideally designed for democratisation.

Working for Reuters gives me a tremendous platform and great access. It does not give me a license.

Microblogging and macroblogging and social networks are themselves great platforms.

If great storytellers use those platforms to display their knowledge, access, expertise and abilities, I think that is a marvellous advance.

If I don't beat the Reuters wire with a live tweet because I deliberately hold back, someone else will. If I don't beat the Reuters wire because I'm slow or inattentive, someone else will.

The reason my live tweeting was fast is that it was unintermediated, while the journalist covering the story went the traditional route and had a discussion with an editor about how best to position and play the story.

Both methods have important roles. In this case, the editor added value.

In a democratic world where publishing platforms are available to all, editors and institutions like Reuters MUST add great value if they are to survive the competitive fight with the unintermediated storytellers.

I love that.

I love the competitive pressure that brings.

I love the way it will force us continually to redefine our role vis-a-vis unaffiliated storytellers.

I love the way it is and will continue to force us to redefine our profession and our craft.

Are there potential pitfalls and dangers? Could a mistweet hurt our reputation? Of course. And over time we will have to work hard to decide what we have reporters tweet in their own names and what we have them do in the company name; we'll have to refine our rules about micro and macroblogging to allow the maximum of free expression while holding fast to our important values of being fair, accurate and free from bias.

But we will get there. And consumers of news will be the ultimate beneficiaries.

Is it journalism?

Is it dangerous?

Is it embarrassing that my tweets even beat the Reuters newswire?

Am I destroying Reuters standards by encouraging tweeting or blogging?

(These aren't rhetorical questions - I've been challenged by many people who would answer those questions as No, Yes, Yes, and Yes! I answer them as Yes, Potentially, No and No.)

The foundation of what we do as a company and as a news service are the Reuters Trust Principles.

While it is vital to read the five as a whole, I take the fifth ("That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products of Thomson Reuters so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business") as an imperative for continual innovation and experimentation.

I have no idea what journalism will look like in five years except that it will be different than it is now. That's a great thing, I believe.

I have little patience for those who cling to sentimental (and frankly inaccurate) memories of the good old halcyon days of journalism that were somehow purer and better than a world where tweets and blogs compete with news wires and newspapers.

Bring it on, I say!

Journalism is one of the great self-declared professions and crafts.  I am a journalist because I said I was one more than two decades ago and have spent the years since working on my abilities. I am not one because I am somehow anointed with a certificate or an exam result.

Journalism is ideally designed for democratisation.

Working for Reuters gives me a tremendous platform and great access. It does not give me a license.

Microblogging and macroblogging and social networks are themselves great platforms.

If great storytellers use those platforms to display their knowledge, access, expertise and abilities, I think that is a marvellous advance.

If I don't beat the Reuters wire with a live tweet because I deliberately hold back, someone else will. If I don't beat the Reuters wire because I'm slow or inattentive, someone else will.

The reason my live tweeting was fast is that it was unintermediated, while the journalist covering the story went the traditional route and had a discussion with an editor about how best to position and play the story.

Both methods have important roles. In this case, the editor added value.

In a democratic world where publishing platforms are available to all, editors and institutions like Reuters MUST add great value if they are to survive the competitive fight with the unintermediated storytellers.

I love that.

I love the competitive pressure that brings.

I love the way it will force us continually to redefine our role vis-a-vis unaffiliated storytellers.

I love the way it is and will continue to force us to redefine our profession and our craft.

Are there potential pitfalls and dangers? Could a mistweet hurt our reputation? Of course. And over time we will have to work hard to decide what we have reporters tweet in their own names and what we have them do in the company name; we'll have to refine our rules about micro and macroblogging to allow the maximum of free expression while holding fast to our important values of being fair, accurate and free from bias.

But we will get there. And consumers of news will be the ultimate beneficiaries.

Institutions failed us. Governments failed us.

Our own intuition failed most of us (George Soros said today that he protected his capital and had a satisfactory return -- that's certainly better than I did!).

Our advisers failed us.
The media failed us too.

So before we buy again, or invest again, or behave normally again, people need an answer to the fundamental question -- where can I invest my trust.

I think that's the issue behind all of the discussions here.

And solving the related questions of "who is trustworthy now" and "what can we do to create trust in governments and institutions" seems a vital first step..

Original Post Text:

One news theme I've asked our journalists to be alert to this year is the shift in power and emphasis from West to East.

The rise of China's economic power during 30 years of reform and opening to the world is just one manifestation of this; the knowledge and service powerhouse that India has come in a globalised world is another. At Davos this year I'm moderating a panel on Asian innovation that will surely highlight software advances in Japan, Korea and Thailand as well.

I'm convinced the current global economic crisis must lead to a fundamental reassessment of how power and influence is expressed through the world, from manufacturing and service oriented Asia through the oil-rich Gulf.

This isn't because of "decoupling" - that notion so prominent in discussion circles a year or so ago that said things like China's economic boom could make up for any economic weakness in the U.S. That idea has been well and truly discredited as trade and money flows have caused bank after bank, nation after nation and economy after economy to buckle and bend in the current crisis.

No, it's precisely because of "coupling" that the world will have to rethink radically its governance and regulatory and influence structures.

I see today's opening session at the World Economic Forum as emblematic of this shift. The two world leaders taking centre stage at Davos today are not from the United States or from the United Kingdom or from France or Germany or Italy or Japan or Canada.

First Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will address the delegates from business, finance and governments (including some 40 heads of state or government) outlining Beijing's approach to solving the world economic crisis. His tour is being billed by Chinese officials as a "trip of confidence" -- the very words signal China's new importance on the world stage.

Then the conference plenary speech will be given by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who reportedly will call for a change in the world economic order.

Two new messages from two players asserting their position on the world stage - will the delegates at Davos feel the tectonic shifts?

One news theme I've asked our journalists to be alert to this year is the shift in power and emphasis from est to East.

The rise of China's economic power during 30 years of reform and opening to the world is just one manifestation of this; the knowledge and service powerhouse that India has come in a globalised world is another. At Davos this year I'm moderating a panel on Asian innovation that will surely highlight software advances in Japan, Korea and Thailand as well.

I'm convinced the current global economic crisis must lead to a fundamental reassessment of how power and influence is expressed through the world, from manufacturing and service oriented Asia through the oil-rich Gulf.

This isn't because of "decoupling" - that notion so prominent in discussion circles a year or so ago that said things like China's economic boom could make up for any economic weakness in the U.S. That idea has been well and truly discredited as trade and money flows have caused bank after bank, nation after nation and economy after economy to buckle and bend in the current crisis.

No, it's precisely because of "coupling" that the world will have to rethink radically its governance and regulatory and influence structures.

I see today's opening session at the World Economic Forum as emblematic of this shift. The two world leaders taking centre stage at Davos today are not from the United States or from the United Kingdom or from France or Germany or Italy or Japan or Canada.

First Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will address the delegates from business, finance and governments (including some 40 heads of state or government) outlining Beijing's approach to solving the world economic crisis. His tour is being billed by Chinese officials as a "trip of confidence" -- the very words signal China's new importance on the world stage.

Then the conference plenary speech will be given by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who reportedly will call for a change in the world economic order.

Two new messages from two players asserting their position on the world stage - will the delegates at Davos feel the tectonic shifts?

Me?

Sure I'm here for the work - Reuters news is deeply involved in coverage with live TV every morning and a team of specialist journalists digging for scoops; I'm also moderating a couple of panels on Asian Innovation and on Brazil's potential and participating in a further one on collaboration.

But forget all that, and the cocktail parties and the networking with other members of the International Media Council.

What I like is the art.

For me, Davos's hidden gem is the Kirchner Museum.

Ernst Ludwig Kirchner (May 6, 1880 – June 15, 1938) was a key early figure in Expressionism and settled in the mountains of Davos after suffering a nervous breakdown in World War I.

The current exhibit at the museum on Kirchner's late works strikes me as particularly appropriate for this post-financial crisis world.

Kirchner was all about transformation, reinventing himself and his art practically every decade. These works from the late 1920s and early 1930s to me speak to a man trying to make sense of his place in a world poised for major ructions.

Woodblocks with harsh black edges, images of lithe dancers folding into each other's shapes and shadows, garishly coloured large paintings of faces, bodies and cafe life -- these speak to me of a world whose boundaries were no longer clear and which was ripe for reinvention.

Surely our world too is ready for reinvention -- and certainly the world of finance and business and government represented at Davos plenaries.

How many of the 2009 delegates to the World Economic Forum will take time from their deliberations or networking to get inspiration from a genius four generations previous?

I'm glad I snuck in on this set-up day to get my favourite part of the Davos experience in.

He knew it the second he landed.

Gymnast Yang Wei knew that mathematically, emotionally, historically and rightfully the men’s all-around Olympic title was his -- and the overwhelmingly partisan home-town crowd knew it too.

There was no need for Yang or for his supporters to wait the seemingly interminable minutes for the judges to review his performance on the horizontal bar – as the final participant in the sixth and final rotation of the championship, his lead was so strong that it would have taken a disaster to knock him out of first.

And there had been no disaster.

So Yang played to the crowd.

He flexed his bulging muscles. He raised his arms in triumph. He draped himself in China’s flag. He played cheerleader, waving his arms to encourage the crowd’s roars.

And all this well before the judges had announced their decision.

China’s historical sage Confucius might have been appalled.

In XIII:27 of The Analects it is written -- “The Master said: The firm, the enduring, the simple, and the modest are near to virtue.”

Of course, in XIV:29 it adds: “The Master said: The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions.”

And with a 2.6 point win over the Silver medallist, Japan’s Kohei Uchimura, and with his win wiping out eight years of personal frustration, Yang, only the second Chinese man to capture the all around title at the Olympics, knew his actions had indeed exceeded.

He knew it. The crowd knew it. And at long last, the judges announced it.

Photos REUTERS/Dylan Martinez