Letter from the Editor

October 25, 2010

Reuters Breakingviews is more used to commenting on other organisations’ behaviour than to having its own actions put under the microscope. But in the last week, as a result of retroactive disclaimers we made to a series of articles in order to clarify potential conflicts of interest, we have rightly been under scrutiny.

We have now completed our inquiries and I wanted to explain to you what happened and how we plan to act in future.
Reuters’ Handbook of Journalism forbids journalists from dealing in “securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future”. It also requires them to notify their manager before writing about a company in which they have a financial interest. The purpose of these rules is to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest.

Late last month, a journalist told one of our editors that he had acquired BP shares near their trough following the Gulf of Mexico blow-out. The columnist had written about BP around the time he bought the shares. After further inquiries, it emerged that he had traded in six other stocks (of which four involved taking up his rights in rights issues) within one month either side of writing about them. He also disclosed that he had written about another eight stocks in which he had a significant financial interest. In total, 15 stocks were affected and 39 stories were re-filed with disclaimers. Although we found no evidence that the columnist had abused his journalistic position for financial gain, we view this as a serious matter. The journalist resigned.

All other Breakingviews columnists have been asked whether there were any potential conflicts of interest. As a result, we re-filed stories with disclaimers by two columnists. In one, the journalist dealt in securities once within a month either side of writing about them, although the size of the investment was not significant. In the other, disclosure was made to the journalist’s then-manager — complying with Reuters policy — but an inconsistent approach was taken in disclosing this to readers.

The process is now concluded and, where necessary, appropriate action has been taken. Reuters as a whole is reviewing its own procedures and training to minimise the chance of anything like this recurring. In the meantime, Breakingviews will enforce the existing code vigorously.

One comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Thank you, we as readers appreciate the straightforward disclosure. It’s this kind of straightforward, honest approach to news coverage that has led me to rely on Reuters as my primary news source. I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (of course, I would have anyway, this doesn’t sound very malfeasant to me).

Posted by josefski | Report as abusive