After six of the most rewarding years in my career, this is my final week at Reuters as global editor for ethics and standards.  In this role, it’s been my job to make sure Reuters journalists have the guidance, tools and oversight to help them practice journalism in a way that is consistent with the  highest ethics and standards.  I’ve spent most of my life doing more-or-less daily journalism, and now my wife and I have formed a media consulting company. But before I move on, I’m taking one last opportunity to reflect on why I’m proud to have been a Reuters journalist.

Some say journalism’s golden age has passed. But speaking as someone who has been at this for 38 years, I think we’re living in it.

The news cycle of the first three months of 2011 has clearly shown the value of having experienced journalists in place around the globe to tell the world’s stories and provide insight into how those stories affect the lives of our audience.

I’m humbled by the skill and courage our journalists have shown in reporting on the wars and revolutions in the Middle East and the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis in Japan. Just this week, Sabah al-Bazee, a freelance Iraqi journalist who had worked for Reuters since 2004, was killed while reporting from Tikrit when gunmen attacked a government building.

I’m also proud that, at Reuters, we do our work in the open.

In 2009 we made the Reuters Handbook of Journalism available for free online. The handbook is the guidance Reuters journalists live by and we were proud to make it public.

As I wrote in 2009, we made the handbook public for three important reasons:

Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.

I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on Reuters.com and on other major news sites.  On some stories,  the “conversation”  has been little more than  partisans slinging invective at each other under  the cloak of anonymity.

I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead Reuters.com are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.

The new process, which gives special status to readers whose comments have passed muster in the past, won’t address the anonymity issue, but I do think it is an important step toward a more civil and thoughtful conversation.

Let me introduce Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, to tell you about the new process:

——————————————————————————————

Like many major news publishers, we’ve agonized over how to balance our enthusiasm for reader comments on stories with our belief that few people would benefit from a free-for-all. Most of our readers respect our request for comments that “advance the story,” by submitting relevant anecdotes, links and data or by challenging our reporting when they think we’ve fallen short of our editorial standards. It’s rewarding, sometimes even exhilarating, to see the way our audience builds on our coverage.

Let’s see who’s been commenting on Reuters stories and blogs in recent days and weeks. There’s gadfly, WeNotMe, Blisterpearls, northboundgirl, Snowshoes and JacktheBear, among others. I strongly suspect those are not their real names.

I don’t mean to call out these particular commenters, and I’m happy to see our readers taking the time to engage in robust discussion on Reuters.com. But I’m beginning to think our discussion would be even more robust and insightful if those making comments signed their real names.

News organizations have grappled with how to handle reader comments practically since the dawn of online media. When I was at MSNBC.com in the 1990s we had message boards that at first were heavily monitored (at a fairly high cost) and then were largely unmonitored. By 1998, no matter what the purported subject of the board, the discussion would be taken over by frenzied postings on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

Some organizations have taken a very laissez-faire approach to reader comments, allowing anything to be posted and taking down only the most egregiously offensive comments after the fact. Others have taken a much more labor-intensive–and expensive–approach, moderating all comments before they’re published. Some have banned anonymous comments. Most are somewhere in the middle. I spoke with Reuters general manager for global consumer media, Keith McAllister, about the Reuters.com approach.

“We want our users to be as involved as possible in Reuters.com,” Keith said. “User comments, particularly, help us move stories beyond our own reporting and analysis to unpredictably interesting and valuable places. We learn from (users) and, we believe, (users) learn from each other.”

He added: “We are also zealous guardians of the quality of the Reuters.com community because so many of you rely on our site to be a place of serious and informed debate. That’s why we ask users to register to comment and why–in the near future–we’ll take the additional step of clearing each new user’s first comment.”

I think that’s a smart move that will make the debate in the comments sections even smarter. Still, I wonder if we should tackle the question of anonymity.

The recent publication of “The Imperfectionists,” Tom Rachman’s  witty and entertaining little novel about a struggling English-language newspaper in Rome with a colorful staff, was a reminder that, even as newspapers face a tough economic climate, there’s still a good market for stories about them.

Maybe it’s because I want to find some glamor or intrigue or romance in my  profession, so I find it reassuring that writers are still able to spin entertaining tales about journalists.

So, in addition to “The Imperfectionists,” here’s a completely arbitrary and woefully incomplete list of works that either have journalists as major characters or have journalism as a backdrop to the action of the book.  There are no “how-to” or educational works here, though some of these do offer lessons in the ethics and practice of journalism.

–“The Year of Living Dangerously,” by Christopher Koch: Maybe it’s the romantic 1982 Peter Weir film adaptation with Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver that makes this work so unforgettable to me.  A young Australian broadcast journalist, Guy Hamilton, arrives in Indonesia during the Sukarno era and joins a foreign-correspondent community marked by rivalry and the ability to consume large amounts of alcohol. Lots of romance and espionage intrigue and a plot to overthrow Sukarno. Hamilton finds himself way too close to the story.

–“The Lotus Eaters, “by Tatjana Soli: This newly published novel follows an American female photojournalist during the Vietnam War. As the title’s nod to Greek mythology indicates, the novel looks at how journalists are sometimes narcotized by the stories–particularly the wars—that they cover and find they can’t live without them.

–”1984,” by George Orwell: It’s been 61 years since it was published and 26 years since the title year passed into history. But the novel that gave us Newspeak, Big Brother and doublethink remains an inspiration for journalists who report on the world as it is–not how the Party decreed it to be.

–”The Quiet American,” by Graham Greene: What is it about Asia that gives us such great journalism books? Greene’s novel, set in the sunset of France’s war in Vietnam and in the dawn of America’s conflict, features a journalist, Thomas Fowler, who is finally forced to take a stand. But does he do it for the right reasons? And is it worth a life?

It’s easy to become enchanted with the multimedia world of communications we live in. Every week, it seems, technology brings a new way for people to connect with one another and for journalists to tell stories.

But I’m reminded that this is not the case for much of the world—that the brilliant technologists and the daring entrepreneurs of “new media” tend to ply their trade in the developed world.

Actually, I was reminded of this by my editorial assistant, Jacqueline Bischof. Jackie hails from South Africa and after working with me for the better part of a year she will be returning this summer to her homeland, whose media industry will benefit greatly from her intelligence, creativity and energy. We’ve had numerous conversations about the implications the digital revolution has for the developing world, so I asked her to share some thoughts.

Over to Jackie.

—————————–

Audio slideshows. Streaming video. Flash graphics. Bandwidth- intensive sites.

In the two years that I’ve been living in New York City, studying my Masters at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and working, I’ve been absorbed by discussions around digital media and the way the industry has been both energized and intimidated by the potential of the Internet to host new forms of communication. I’ve seen some beautiful sites, fabulous interactive graphics and exciting digital tools that illustrate the powerful story-telling potential of the web.

One of the many joys I have in this job is getting the occasional opportunity to help give prizes away.

I served as a judge for the first Breaking Borders Awards, which were created by Google and Global Voices, and supported by Thomson Reuters, to honor some of those who strive for freedom of expression online.

The awards–$10,000 each and divided into three categories: technology, policy and advocacy– were presented Thursday at the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit in Santiago, Chile.

Deliberations were difficult, as the standard of entries was high and the judges were impressed by the work being done by individuals and groups to deliver on the Internet’s promise: a medium that allows for freedom of expression and the free flow of information.

The winners were decided after several weeks of deliberation by the judging panel, which included myself, Robert Boorstin, Director of Public Policy at Google; Sheila Coronel, director of the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University; Rebecca MacKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices Online and Visiting Fellow at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology; Edetaen Ojo, Chair of the International Freedom of Expression of Exchange and executive director of Media Rights Agenda in Nigeria; and Jose Roberto de Toledo, founder of the Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism.

In the advocacy category, for “an activist or group that has used online tools to promote free expression or encourage political change,” the winner is the Zimbabwean online community Kubatana.net. Kubatana uses the Internet, email, SMS, blogs and print materials to disseminate information to the public and is a valuable resource for information on the country. Its website hosts debate, publishes official government and legislative rulings and has an extensive archive of human rights and civil reports.

The judges were impressed with the way Kubatana uses a mix of high-tech and low-tech to distribute information in and outside of Zimbabwe. Using internet and mobile technology, their e-mail and SMS alerts and website unite several hundred organizations.

It starts with “A/S” (abbreviation for Aktieselskab, Danish company title) and ends with “zero coupon yield curve” (a yield curve of zero coupon bonds. Market practice is often to derive this curve theoretically from the par yield curve. Also known as a spot yield curve).

Between those two entries in the Reuters Financial Glossary are more than 2,000 other terms used in the financial industry and in the reports that journalists write about it.

As we did with the Handbook of Journalism, we’re making the financial glossary available on the Web. As with the handbook, I believe it’s important that Reuters readers and customers see the guidelines our journalists live by and some of the tools we use to do our work.

The glossary is the result of hard work by Ian Jones, who retired from the Reuters London Treasury desk and did a total rewrite of the glossary; Tomasz Janowski, of our Singapore Treasury desk, who reviewed the work; and interactive developer Mia Walczak, who led the development effort.

The glossary can shed a little light on the sometimes murky world of finance. As we’ve seen from the fallout of the recession, it’s a world everyone should be more familiar with.

The glossary also makes for good reading.

Some of the terms will be familiar to readers who follow the debate on Wall Street pay–“golden hello,” “golden handcuffs” and “golden parachute.”

The rise of social media has brought journalists some powerful new storytelling and information-gathering tools. However, with these new opportunities have come some new risks.

At Reuters, we have just published some social media guidelines that lay out some basic principles and offer recommendations that should prove useful as journalists navigate what can sometimes seem a chaotic landscape.

In building the new guidelines, we’ve embraced some basic principles:

• We encourage the use of social media approaches in Reuters journalism.
• Accuracy, freedom from bias and independence are fundamental to our reputation. These values and the Trust Principles apply to journalism produced using social media just as they have to all other journalism produced by Reuters.
• A distinguishing feature of Reuters is the trust invested in its journalists to rise above personal biases in their work and to apply common sense in dealing with the challenges offered by social media.

This last point is particularly important to me.

I’ve written in the past about how we depend on our journalists to rise above their biases to cover stories in an independent way, whether they’re in Gaza or Washington–or anywhere else.

As comments have shown–and will no doubt show again–there are those who will never believe this is possible. And there are those who would actually prefer to read, listen to or view only those information sources that confirm their own worldview.

Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the Breaking Borders event in Berlin that marked the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The event, at which I spoke, took the anniversary as an opportunity to explore how the Internet is playing a role in advancing participatory democracy and free expression around the world.

The media of 1989–television and satellite technology–played a role in bringing down the wall by connecting people and empowering them with information. Now, 20 years later, vastly more powerful information and communication technology is connecting people online, making it more possible to get around efforts at censorship and the suppression of information.

As a result of discussions at the Breaking Borders conference, Google and Global Voices, the international network of bloggers, have established the Breaking Borders Award to honor those who are fighting for free expression.

The award, which is supported by Thomson Reuters, will honor and support outstanding Web projects–by individuals or groups–”that demonstrate courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the Internet to promote freedom of expression.”

You can make nominations for the award by going to www.breakingborders.net.

There will be three $10,000 prizes; one each in these categories:

Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.Reuters recently hosted a panel at our New York headquarters called “Audience and the Media: A Shaky Marriage.” I was on the panel with a distinguished group: Lisa Shepard, ombudsman of National Public Radio; Andrew Alexander, ombudsman of The Washington Post; and Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor of The Associated Press. Jack Shafer, editor-at-large of Slate, was the moderator.The key question we explored was: “How can mainstream news organizations retain (or regain) their audiences’ trust in a skeptical world where almost anyone with an Internet connection can be a publisher?” It will come as no surprise that we did not answer the question definitively in the 75 minutes we were on stage. However, a number of questions–some quite troubling–were raised. Rather than attempt to summarize all the points raised and positions taken by the panelists and the audience, I’ll explore some of the questions raised in my mind.–Why do people mistrust the media and whose fault is it?Much of the fault lies with the mainstream media. For far too many years, news organizations had an arrogant, one-way relationship with our audiences. We gathered news, packaged it in ways we thought made sense and shoveled it out to our audiences. If you liked what we delivered, fine. If not, well, you could always write a letter to the editor of the newspaper where you saw the story. Now I think the balance is much better. Feedback is instantaneous, transparency is the norm and our readers can also be publishers on their own.On the other hand, much of the distrust is not our fault. Discourse–certainly in the United States– has become far more polarized and news consumers are seeking out news sources that support their own politics or world view. That makes it especially difficult for those of us who pride ourselves on being independent and free of bias. Readers sometimes see bias when a news report doesn’t support their particular world view.Let’s remember that the idea of an unbiased and independent press is relatively new. Many news consumers around the world choose a news outlet that reflects their world view. I worry that a large cohort of news consumers now expect that–and prefer it.–Can journalists rise above their political beliefs to provide unbiased coverage?I believe they can, they do and they must. That is the essence of being a professional reporter.However, we don’t do ourselves any favors when we use social media like Facebook and Twitter to express opinions on politics or policy issues, then find that we have to cover the issues we’re sounding off about. As we advise our journalists at Reuters, social media have made our public and private personae virtually indistinguishable–and we have to expect that anything we say in social media is public information. Journalists shouldn’t engage in public activity–either online or offline–that could call into question their ability to report a story fairly.That said, I do believe that journalists can have strong political, religious and social views and still cover their beats with independence and freedom from bias. Again, that’s the essence of professionalism. The flip side is that when bias is evident, we have to expect that our audience will be vocal in pointing it out.–Dealing with audience comments.As someone who writes a column/blog, I have to confess that reading the comments that come in can be wearying. There are always those who use the comments section–no matter what the topic–as a proxy for delivering a political message.Nowhere is this more evident than when I write about the Middle East. There’s a substantial number of people who will never, ever believe that Reuters journalists can set aside personal views and report fairly and objectively from, say, Gaza.I worry that sometimes comments amount not to a discussion, but, as Lisa Shepard put it, “shouting at the television set.”I think we’re better off having comments than not, but they are a challenge to monitor and moderate. Here are some questions to think about–and comment on! (1) Should comment authors be required to sign their real name and provide contact information that would be used to confirm their identity, but not be published? (2) Would it be better to continue to allow anonymity, but put all comments one click away from the original material; that is, provide a link that would take you to a separate comments page? (3) SHOULD ENTRIES IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS BE BANNED?–What ever happened to the golden age of journalism?Let me declare my true colors here: I’m a card-carrying optimist.I’m suspicious of this nostalgia for a so-called golden age of journalism. Show me when it was. Journalists today are better educated than ever before. We have research and newsgathering tools that are far faster and more powerful. We can deliver news faster and more efficiently to readers and viewers than ever before.In the supposed good old days–before the Internet, before the democratization of publishing–it was easier and more common to hide mistakes, to suppress stories, to be pressured by the powerful. The new transparency makes it much harder to control the flow of news in the way that presidents, prime ministers and other powerful institutions could do in earlier times.Sure, the democratization of publishing has resulted in a cacophony of sources, with varying degrees of credibility. But that’s where we in the mainstream media have a responsibility to engage in the fray and promote the journalistic values we live by. We must continue to shed the arrogance and share the standards and values that give us credibility.This can be the golden age.–