No wedding coverage

June 20, 2010

News groups pull coverage of Swedish royal wedding

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Three news organizations pulled coverage of the wedding of Sweden’s heir to the throne on Saturday, protesting restrictions set by a Swedish state broadcaster.

Reuters, owned by Thomson Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France Presse complained about redistribution terms set by Sveriges Television (SVT) for audiovisual rights to footage of Sweden’s first royal wedding in more than 30 years.

SWEDEN-ROYALS/WEDDINGTo claim that withholding any coverage of the Swedish royal wedding in the “interest of freedom of the press” is the clearest example of double-speak from the press there ever was.

It’s something you would expect from Pravda or Xinhua! Then to claim that the wedding of a non-reigning princess in a small, Nordic country is not entertainment, but a major historical event, is ludicrous if not pathetic!

Reuters and AP thought they could simply bully the Swedes into consenting to non-standard terms. In the end, it makes me question the integrity of Reuters and AP. When you guys fail…it will be your own fault!

Drumsey

Congratulations. You have succeeded in lowering my already abysmal opinion of today’s news organizations.

I had looked forward to watching the royal wedding and couldn’t figure out who messed up when I couldn’t find out when it would be shown. Now, thanks to the internet, I find that your organization, AP, and AFP are the culprits.

The Swedes had the right to set the terms—it’s their wedding. I would have waited to see it. It didn’t have to be live.
Like spoiled brats, you took your marbles and went home when the game wasn’t set up your way. So, you spoiled it for the rest of us.

Cam

Sweden’s Crown Princess Victoria (R) and her fiance Daniel Westling arrive for a Gala performance at the concert hall in Stockholm June 18, 2010, as part of this weekend’s wedding celebrations. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

Join the Good, Bad, Ugly Facebook Blog Network

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/

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jana Leigh, Good, Bad, and Ugly. Good, Bad, and Ugly said: No wedding coverage http://link.reuters.com/tyg92m [...]

Um, don’t you guys — Drumsey and Cam — want to know the facts, first? The circumstances surrounding the media groups pulling their coverage? The actual reasons?

Posted by Bookman | Report as abusive