For the Record
Dean Wright on Ethics, Innovation and Values
One final point
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:
Hungary drudges through this toxic spill
I wish it were the awarding of its 14th Nobel Prize that is putting my country in the news these days.
Instead, Hungary is back on the world stage because of a disastrous chemical spill. An avalanche of a highly alkaline mud that could fill 440 Olympic-sized swimming pools has broken through the shoddy containment walls at an aluminum plant not far from the Lake Balaton region. As a result, nine people have died and 250 were injured. Wild and farm animals have perished, and lands and little summer gardens that were the villagers’ food and staple for winter have been ravished.
The 16th century castle in Devecser has surely seen a lot but now looks over hundreds of homes doomed to demolition. Kolontar, the village right under the alumina pond has even been compared to Chernobyl, the infamous home of a nuclear power plant disaster in Ukraine in 1986.
But a comparison of this sort only adds more damage to the grief: The red mud, as bad as it looks, is not highly radioactive, which was the case with Chernobyl. What makes the red sludge dangerous is alkali, which can dissolve skin as water dissolves soap. Eating up shoes and rubber boots, alkali left villagers with second- and third-degree burns.
Unfortunately, Alkali is all too familiar to Hungarians.
“Heartbroken maids would drink [alkali-rich] laundry detergent in the 19th century,” Dr. Zoltan Komaromi, secretary of the Hungarian Medical Chamber, said. “Alkali dissolves the esophagus immediately so drinking it used to be a popular way of committing suicide.”
Toward a more thoughtful conversation on stories
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.
Well, I must say that I have come to believe that the First Amendment is probably the single most important piece of our democracy. Your blatant attempt to filter and control commentary on news issues is a clear and reprehensible violation of the First Amendment. You should be embarrassed to call yourself a member of the free press.
Hungary grapples with free-press issues
When my editorial assistant, Mirjam Donath, traveled to her native Hungary recently, I asked her to look into some of the ethical issues faced by journalists there.
In a coincidental piece of timing, Hungary’s president this week signed into a law controversial media legislation that has drawn criticism from constitutional law experts and press freedom advocates. So Mirjam’s interviews in Hungary are all the more newsworthy now.
Over to Mirjam.
——————————————————————————————-
If the man who introduced the ombudsman institution to Hungary says that the freedom of the Hungarian press is in danger, a journalist takes notice. And Laszlo Majtenyi, the first Freedom of Information Commissioner of Hungary and former president of the media supervisory authority (ORTT), warned me of just that during my recent visit to Budapest.
Following the first round of the Hungarian elections, analysts predicted that the two-thirds majority of the center-right party, Fidesz, which formed Hungary’s new government in April, was to have a slightly positive impact on financial markets. This unprecedented mandate, which gives the government the power to make even constitutional changes without the consent of the opposition, promised relatively quick implementation of economic reforms.
But as soon as the government came into power, first the Hungarian currency, the Forint, tumbled in early June. Then, the IMF suspended negotiations on Hungary’s funding program in July. And this week, President Pal Schmitt signed the most controversial part of the new media law package, which was condemned by constitutional experts in Hungary and press freedom watchdogs abroad.
What did you say your name was?
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 problem is, there is no universal way to verify that someone is who they say they are. This problem is present in all forms of communication, including face-to-face.
If you take away anonymous activity, people will just lie to remain anonymous, and that is far more damaging to the person being impersonated than to the person who is anonymous.
Online video games are an extreme version of online discussion forums, often populated with people of various intellectual capacities, opinions, and technical expertise.
Take a minute and check out any MMO game, ones that are “free” to play, do absolutely no verification in the US, Canada, or Australia. As such, this results in such a low barrier of entry, much like forums, that anyone can impersonate anyone, or make as many sock-puppet accounts to advance their agenda. Then of course there is the spam.
On a Pay-to-play type of game (and paid-membership required forums like Something Awful), raises the bar to that of how much money someone is willing to sink into advancing their cause, or resort to taking over other peoples accounts. If you happen to have an unpopular opinion, you could be banned, and to come back, you have to again register, lie about who you are, and cough up more money.
It still does not establish that the person is who they say they are.
Maybe if some form of ID card or something was required to be plugged into the computer in order to post pseduo-anonymously, that a third party can verify (eg like how I’m using Twitter) certain identities can be verified as being non-throwaway. My identity at Reuters blogs is also my Twitter, blogger, and a dozens of other sites. Unfortunately one can not be expected to remember a unique login for every single site they wish to use, even once.
But the right solution is to raise or lower the barrier to entry depending on how mature your audience is and how much staff you can dedicate to it. If too much time is spent moderating spam (see reCaptcha) from the real comments, then the barrier to entry needs to be raised. If most of the comments appear to be rubbish (eg “soundbites”) then maybe paid membership is an option, leaving only those who actually take a discussion seriously to participate.
It’s my personal opinion that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone’s opinion is welcome everywhere. One does not have the right to be anonymous, and they are free to take their discussion elsewhere. However one should not suddenly switch from being Anonymous to using real names (see Blizzard Software), as this violates the users trust.
All that happens when you start posting peoples real names against their wishes, is that people lie more, or post names with the intent of subverting it (eg posting names of their enemies and people they hate.) Nobody wants a stalker, and nobody wants to be fired from their job because someone happened to make up a fictitious “you” to post libel.
When journalism becomes a good story
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?
Local takes on a global media revolution
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.
Honoring Free Expression Online
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.
Check out the new Reuters Financial Glossary
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.”
Social media: Some principles and guidelines
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.


Hi Dean,all your excuses are lack of merit.
You exemplified worst editorial,due to bias and freedom of integrity.
You should aware that you did something stupid.
Reuters trust principles are deceptive devices.