Archive

Reuters blog archive

from The Great Debate UK:

D-Day Dispatch: The first reporter on the beach

"I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory." Dwight D Eisenhower, D- DAY – June 6, 1944

 

<em>"Since before daybreak, bombers and fighters had cascaded their cargoes on German gun emplacements and pillboxes, scoured the skies for the Luftwaffe and probed ahead for tactical targets. This was war in its totality, theatrical and terrifying. The greatest combined operation in history was underway and this time, I was not just in the stalls but on the stage."</em>Doon Campbell, Reuters correspondent, ‘Magic Mistress – A 30 year affair with Reuters’</p><p> 

"Since before daybreak, bombers and fighters had cascaded their cargoes on German gun emplacements and pillboxes, scoured the skies for the Luftwaffe and probed ahead for tactical targets. This was war in its totality, theatrical and terrifying. The greatest combined operation in history was underway and this time, I was not just in the stalls but on the stage."Doon Campbell, Reuters correspondent, ‘Magic Mistress – A 30 year affair with Reuters’

Seventy years ago, the Normandy landings, which began on D-Day ( June 6, 1944), marked  the beginning of the end of the Second World War. Codenamed  ‘Operation Neptune’, the Allies, under the supreme command of U.S. General Dwight D Eisenhower, regained a foothold in Western Europe. Many months would pass before Hitler committed suicide, but from this moment, the days of his ‘Third Reich’ were numbered.

Born with only half a left arm, Doon Campbell (pictured above), one of the Reuters D-Day correspondents, was ineligible to join the British forces. But with a name like ‘Doon’ he was almost predestined to opt for the next best thing – the ‘Boys Own Adventure’ career of a War Correspondent. At 24 years-old, he was not only the youngest British war correspondent covering the invasion, he was also the first reporter to set foot on the Normandy beaches with the sea-borne force.

from John Lloyd:

Journalism’s next big problem

For a brief time at the beginning of the last century, politicians and journalists were friends. Not just friends, but colleagues, comrades in arms, letter-writing correspondents who praised and flattered each other in copious screeds. The politician during this period was President Theodore Roosevelt and the journalists were a handful of driven and talented writers. Many of them -- Lincoln Steffens, Ray Baker, Ida Tarbell and others -- were brought together by Samuel McClure in the magazine that bore his name.

McClure's was published with the dual intention of explaining the contemporary era in lengthy researched pieces and supporting reform, especially of corrupt city governments and the huge, powerful corporations or trusts of the time.

from Breakingviews:

Time for Larry and Sergey to invest in journalism?

By Rob Cox and Richard Beales
The authors are Reuters Breakingviews columnists. The opinions expressed are their own.

Is it time for Google billionaires Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt to invest in journalism? In 2013, Amazon architect Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar announced a new investigative reporting venture. Yet strictly by the numbers, few have made their money at the expense of the old-school pillars of the fourth estate quite as obviously as the Google guys.

from Jack Shafer:

Does anyone still work at the ‘New York Times’?

Recent defections of talent from the New York Times -- Nate Silver, David Pogue, Jeff Zeleny, Richard Berke, Brian Stelter, Matt Bai, et al. -- have unjelled the media firmament, according to Politico media columnist Dylan Byers. In a piece this week, Byers called the departures "a brain drain," "a sucker punch to staff morale," and an opportunity for the paper to come "face to face with a harsh reality" that in the new media age, its star journalists can no longer be satisfied by the “‘aura' of the newspaper of record." In the same day's Huffington Post, Michael Calderone had the paper fretting about its "retention rate," adding the names of Don Van Natta Jr., Lisa Tozzi, Judy Battista, Howard Beck, and Eric Wilson to the list of departees.

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple neutered Byers's observation by noting that if anybody is suffering a brain drain, it's Politico, shifting the discussion from the-Times-ain't-the-ultimate-destination-it-once-was of Byers to the more durable assertion by Wemple that retaining-good-people-has-never-been-easy-for-any-outlet-and-it-ain't-getting-easier. My view comports more closely to Wemple’s, but that doesn’t mean Byers is full of it. The Times departures mean something. But what?

from The Great Debate:

A journalistic revolution

Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who revealed National Security Agency surveillance leaks from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, dueled this week with former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller over objectivity in journalism. Keller argued that impartiality forces a journalist to test all assumptions. Greenwald, however, countered that impartiality didn't test assumptions as much as confer authority to each of them. He explained that his new reporting venture, a website funded by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar, would treat official pronouncements with skepticism.

But while this argument has been taking up a lot of the journalistic oxygen, Paul Thornton, head of the Los Angeles Times letters to the editor section, weighed in recently with a potentially more significant position. Thornton held brief for neither impartiality nor skepticism, but rather for a belief that facts matter -- that they can lead to conclusions whether you happen to like those conclusions or not.

from Jack Shafer:

Why journalists are like cops and firefighters

When some of our friends in academia read the top news about Syria on a website or in a newspaper, they do so through a lens ground by UCLA political scientist John Zaller. In a 2003 paper (pdf), Zaller analyzed two modes of news production that journalists often employ. While working in patrol mode, the press surveys the landscape for trouble and writes up what it finds, like a cop walking a beat and writing the occasional ticket or making the routine arrest. In alarm mode, aroused reporters respond to calls for help by lighting up the gumball, tossing it on the roof, and peeling out for the crime scene, the building afire, or the battleground.

I simplify Zaller here, just as he modified the patrol/alarm idea of two other political scientists on his way to his insight. But the simplification stands: The journalistic transmission knows two basic gears: slow or fast; monitoring from afar or fully entrenched; casual or obsessed. The press has long treated Syria as just another stop on its Middle East patrol, even though it has regarded massacres as legitimate tools of governance for decades, as this BBC timeline indicates. The migration of the two-year-old Syrian civil war from the back pages to the front, where it now amasses acres of newspaper coverage, can be attributed in equal part to the chemical attacks of late August in the western suburbs of Damascus and the puncturing of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. There's nothing like chemical weapons dumped on innocents followed by a U.S. president's threat to drop bombs to change the location of the loudest alarm.

from Anatole Kaletsky:

Bezos needs to reinvent a business model, not journalism

It is now a week since Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon,  announced that he was buying the Washington Post, in what could be the most exciting case of convergence between the new media and the old since the merger of AOL with Time Warner. But how might Bezos re-launch this venerable flagship of U.S. journalism? And what could his ownership of the Post mean for news businesses around the world?

These may seem strange questions for a column devoted mostly to controversies in public policy and economics, but newspapers today are a declining industry comparable to the steel and shipbuilding industries in the 1980s, and employ even more people at higher wages. Newspapers are therefore of great economic significance, not to mention their importance to democracy. Yet public discussion often assumes that journalism is technologically doomed. The Internet, it seems, is ineluctably turning news and analysis from a thriving industry, gainfully employing millions on decent incomes, into an unpaid hobby for philanthropists or self-promoters who will earn their living by other means.

from Nicholas Wapshott:

Jeff Bezos and the new publishing revolution

The last few days have seen a flurry of purchases of ailing print journalism flagships. The Boston Globe was sold. Newsweek changed hands again. And, most spectacular of all, the Washington Post was bought for chump change. Meanwhile, the Tribune group -- publisher of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune -- is readying itself for sale.

There is nothing new about rich men buying newspapers. The surest way to enhance personal prestige is to become a press magnate. As Rupert Murdoch’s second wife Anna replied when asked how she was enjoying Beverly Hills, “It’s not the same if you don’t own the paper.” But something more interesting is going on than social climbing. New technology billionaires are picking up old money properties for a song. Online is moving in on hard copy. This is not evolution, it is a revolution.

from Jack Shafer:

Why the underwear-bomber leak infuriated the Obama administration

Journalists gasp and growl whenever prosecutors issue lawful subpoenas ordering them to divulge their confidential sources or to turn over potential evidence, such as notes, video outtakes or other records. It's an attack on the First Amendment, It's an attack on the First Amendment, It's an attack on the First Amendment, journalists and their lawyers chant. Those chants were heard this week, as it was revealed that Department of Justice prosecutors had seized two months’ worth of records from 20 office, home and cell phone lines used by Associated Press journalists in their investigation into the Yemen underwear-bomber leaks.

First Amendment radicals — I count myself among them — resist any and all such intrusions: You can't very well have a free press if every unpublished act of journalism can be co-opted by cops, prosecutors and defense attorneys. First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams speaks for most journalists when he denounces the "breathtaking scope" of the AP subpoenas. But the press's reflexive protests can prevent it from seeing the story in full, which I think is the case in the current leaks investigation.

from Jack Shafer:

The dumb war on political intelligence

For as long as legislative and regulatory acts have moved financial markets, investors and their operatives have scrummed like Komodo dragons for first bites of the fresh laws and orders dispensed by government. The stampede for the timeliest legal and regulatory information has given rise to the "political intelligence" business, which converts Capitol Hill whispers into stock market gains, and which has now attracted the full scrutiny of Congress and the regulatory apparatus.

Although legislators and regulators previously sought to hobble political-intelligence operatives, their efforts were stoked by a Capitol Hill leak about Medicare policy on April 1 that reached Height Securities — a political intelligence outfit — which in turned relayed the information to its clients in a 75-word note about 35 minutes prior to the official announcement. Clients acted on the tip, goosing skyward the price of such health insurance company stocks as Aetna, Health Net and Humana.

  •