Venezuela is a passionate place and its politics are particularly feisty. The fervent supporters of President Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution pit themselves against equally fervent opponents who believe he is driving the country to dictatorship and ruin. In such an atmosphere the local press becomes deeply politicised and many readers look outside to international news organisations to give them a balanced view in tumultuous times. That’s a role that Reuters takes very seriously.
For several hours before official results of Sunday’s referendum were released, Reuters reported senior government sources saying that Chavez was winning a vote that would allow him to contest elections for life and enshrine socialism as a state priority in the constitution. The sources were impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the past and who cited exit polls and early returns. The ministers told us Chavez was ahead by a hefty 6-8 points. An independent source also told us we were on the right track. But they were proved wrong. Chavez was defeated.
We’ve received many emails accusing us of a breach of trust, of favouritism and of incompetence. You’ll find a selection on the blog where we post reader comment.
Our mistake was not in using sources to get a beat on the story. We followed our own sourcing rules properly. We made clear that our sources were linked to the government and that we had talked to several senior figures. We specified where they said they had their information from.
We also made strenuous efforts to get the opposition’s point of view. But for a couple of hours we were unable to get them to comment. For some readers that left the impression that Reuters backed the government’s interpretation of events.
As the story developed and opposition conviction grew that the government’s numbers were wrong, we were slow to give the change the attention it merited. Some other news organizations emphasised that the vote was too close to call. In retrospect, it was an approach we should have taken.
We have provided comprehensive and distinguished coverage of the referendum, one of the most important stories in recent months in Latin America. We believe our reporting has been balanced and fair. Our stories strive to explain clearly why Chavez is loved and loathed in equal measure. We erred in this one instance, not from favouritism towards the Chavez government, but because we fell away from the high standards we set ourselves.
Thank you to all the readers who questioned our coverage.
Trackback
21 comments so far
Equivalent to Truman holding up Chicago newspaper:
- Posted by DanielDEWEY WINS! Except much more dangerous in a tense moment that could have led to civil war. Very iresponsible reporting, to say the least. Extreme lack of common sense to ask one of the parties involved in a yes/no situation, “Who do you think won?” What answer did you expect? That they lost?What kind of fool would think of such a thing? What kind of fool would print it? Amazingly, Reuters did.
What a nightmare. But hats off for coming clean.
- Posted by ErikThe fact is that the National Electoral Council, had adamantly expressed that it was strictly prohibited to publish results before the official bulletin of the Council. Since pro Chavez cronies and the government could not use Telesur or their other stations to create confusion through false news, they brilliantly used Reuters.
- Posted by Silvia PukyMore investigation before giving a news, the novelty of you could cost very expensivly to an entire society.
You owe an excuse to us
- Posted by megaAs a world-wide and respected news agency, cut out all the rhetoric and just say: “We blew it.”
- Posted by VikingI want to thank you for sending me the link to Sean Maguire’s report after the many complaints received by Reuters-mine I believe was the first one of them right after first Reuters news break which few hours later reminded your readers of the famous victory of Dewey over Truman.
The three Ministers that allegedly provided such information to your journalists violated the law . The Reuters journalists failed to ask them why were they violating the electoral law, and evidently showed unethical indifference to the laws of our country.
Furthermore the alleged polling companies that carried the exit polls were not checked by the journalists. Neither did they look for officials representatives of the NO campaign as they should have. I believe you should ask them the names of the NO representatives they claim were not available to comment. A fact which we are doubtful took place.
I find extremely distressing the journalists statement that their ” sources were impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the past and who cited exit polls and early returns. The ministers told us Chavez was ahead by a hefty 6-8 points. An independent source also told us we were on the right track.” For Reuters to call an autocratic regime impeccable and objective is truly amazing –to say the least.
We the Venezuelan people were about to lose our liberty and our democracy on December 2nd when Chavez attempted a coup against our Constitution and Reuters should have realized the significance of their reporting to our circumstances to base their report “ on three cabinet ministers” who could not be objective-and to cite and independent as another source but no representatives of the opposition should indicate that there was foul play against the Venezuelan democrats and in blatant favor of the regime. As you remember in the past presidential elections of December 2006 we faced similar issues with the Reuters reporting on the campaign which I brought then to your attention as suggested by Reuters Chairman Niall FitzGerald.
Finally it is clear-and Mr.Maguire does not address the fact- that those journalists showed complete disregard for the electoral laws, independence, neutrality and journalistic ethics. All these elements combined could have caused great damage to the Venezuelan democracy and our liberty.
You must know by now that the regime used the Reuters report to start a massive campaign of disinformation-based on the prestige of Reuters-something that the journalists that reported this false information also disregarded. The Reuters report of the false victory by the SI (Chavez) allowed the regime to hold the announcement of the NO victory by several hours when our future was hanging by a thread and risked peoples reactions in the streets of our country where many could have died. Undoubtedly the Reuters report emboldened Chavez and his regime. Reuters was the only agency besides the Chavez regime to report such false information.
Sincerely
Diego E. Arria
- Posted by Diego E. ArriaAfter the brilliant exposition of Mr. Arria, I would just like to add that it was a very irresponsible behavior on Reuters part and that they should inmediately start a profound revision of their correspondents’ background.
- Posted by CherryI would also look into her bank account, for sure the reason for her behavior will be there.
- Posted by alan britoThis is crux of the dilemma for an ‘always on’ professional media: they have to be right all of the time.
This is an enormous responsibility and one which I can’t imagine Reuters does not still take seriously (In full disclosure, I worked in Reuters Editorial for 26 years but have never met or spoken to Mr. Maguire).
What many well meaning and some perhaps less well-meaning readers do not realize is that the quest for accuracy is seldom a straight line and, sadly, almost never when the stakes are high. One of Mr. observations resonated with me: that the unavailability of opposition comment for a lengthy period and then its dismissal of other reliable source contentions was itself newsworthy and would have, if reported, mitigated the impression of mistakes made for a wider swatch of readers. But in the pressure chamber these nuances are darn difficult to discern.
Nobody likes to be wrong. For professional news organizations, it hurts. Physically. I wonder if anyone who imagines that Reuters was up to no good could explain exactly what it stood to gain when disclosure of the election results — the truth — was inevitable?
Reuters must live with this demerit. But I think everybody who called Florida for Gore in 2000 has been forgiven.
- Posted by John C AbellREUTERS has been a respectable news media source and if there is one thing that must prevail is the “credibility” of its broadcasts. I´m a forum writer and an advocate of Democracy, and I do try as best as I can to preserve my credibility.
Your “error” was to keep believing that after nine years in power, that you are dealing with “decent people” within the Chavez government. Well you are not, since these “monkeys” are like “Al Capone”, in short gangsters in power. You confided in a “gay” vice president Rodriguez and along with an incurable liar like Minister Carreño, who is notorious for inventing lies and misinforming us as a people, and yet you believe him? Again I say to you with what you are dealing with here. They manipulate informacion to suit their convenience. As for the CNE, it´s a Chavez puppet that says what he wants. The exit polls say a different figure from what the CNE said, or have you missed the bruises in Chavez´s hand at the press conference? He thrashed a room in Fuerte Tiuna when he found out the results. Why else does he insult El Nacional´s reporter Hugo Galicia with such an escatological term on Wedsnesday? Th eNO won by morethan 8 points, please confirm this with oppositionleaders.If it was false, he would be in jail, would he not?
Credibility is the key to be respected and above all, believed. Please remember that the truth always comes up sooner or later. Democracy needs credibility.
Very sincerely
- Posted by Juan HerreraAs usual Dr.Diego Arria is right about his view of Venezuelan policies…you don’t or can’t imagine how your correspondent could of sparked a war on the streets of all of the country,it was really irrisponsible to publish at that early stage only the view of the government,who was trying to use you, by the way, he should of at least waited till he had the other option’s exit polls!!! you can’t imagine the chaos that could of happened.
- Posted by Maruja BeracasaSincerly
Maruja Beracasa
Question Reference #071202-000054
—————————————————————
Summary: Bias Headline Venezuela Referendum Urgent
Correction
Product Level 1: Editorial and News
Product Level 2: Corrections
Date Created: 02 12 2007 11:14 PM
Last Updated: 02 12 2007 11:14 PM
Status: Escalated
Country: Other
Discussion Thread
—————————————————————
Customer - 02 12 2007 11:14 PM
Sirs at Reuters: Seems that you are confirming that Mr Chavez have won the referendum today. The exit polls that your are using for your history have been used by the goverment to portrait their position.
Please you should refrase your headline and add in the first paragraph that oposition is contending those numbers
Try no to portrait a result that does not exist yet
Auto-Response - 02 12 2007 11:14 PM
Dear Reader,
Thank you for contacting Reuters with your comments and feedback. Your comments have been passed on to our editorial team.
We appreciate reader feedback, and all e-mails to Reuters.com are read by a senior editor. Please note that due to the huge volume of e-mails sent to the Editors daily, we may be unable to provide a personal response. However, we take your compliments, comments and criticisms very seriously, and we invite you to see what some readers are thinking on our Reader Feedback Page.
We appreciate your feedback and we hope that you continue to use and enjoy the Reuters website.
Kind regards
Reuters Editors
- Posted by Carlos Roman ChalbaudThank you for contacting Reuters. Your query has been received and is
being processed by our team of Webmasters. If you would like to update
your query, please do so by replying to this e-mail.
Question Reference #071203-000040
—————————————————————
Summary: Shameless mistake of you Guys!…Venezuelan
referendum
Product Level 1: Editorial and News
Product Level 2: Corrections
Date Created: 03 12 2007 01:31 AM
Last Updated: 03 12 2007 01:31 AM
Status: Escalated
Country: Other
Discussion Thread
—————————————————————
Customer - 03 12 2007 01:31 AM
How much money the Venezuela govt pay you guys to keep a huge lie from 1800 Venezuelan time until now about Chavez winning the referendum in my country?
Shame on you!
Carlos R Chalbaud
Venezuelan Journalist
p.s. the correct headline is TO CLOSE TO CALL!
Auto-Response - 03 12 2007 01:31 AM
Dear Reader,
Thank you for contacting Reuters with your comments and feedback. Your comments have been passed on to our editorial team.
- Posted by Carlos Roman ChalbaudThese two facts make a great statement:
1) “…sources were impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the past and who cited exit polls and early returns”
2) “We also made strenuous efforts to get the opposition’s point of view. But for a couple of hours we were unable to get them to comment”
If you didn’t have comments from the opposition side, how and why did Reuters decide to publish the story as it was? Basically, the “excuse” is that the government sources were important and reliable, but the opposition’s were not. Otherwise, Reuters would wait.
This shows no ethics and professionalism, only the need to broadcast “breaking news” that never happened, and collect the money.
I could see this coming from Chavez’s media, not Reuters.
- Posted by Manuel CastilloI just could not believe what Reuters were doing.
- Posted by Maigualida LopezYour explanation about these facts is irrelevant, I thought you are a very serious news agency who verify the sources and ponder situations mpre resposibly.
Next time I will not search Reuters as a reliable source of news.
The Reuters blunder wrt the Venezuelan Referendum raises a broader concern; who are the journalists responsible for shaping the world’s public opinion? what is their level of academic credentials? their personal political inclinations ? how versed are they into the local politics and issues? how much history do they know? how many are we talking about?
My personal experience tells me that the US public opinion on Venezuela is based on the reports of no more than a handful reporters and regular contributors. Is this sufficient to give the public a fair unbiased opinion? what happens when some of these unfortunately biased reports are circulated in more than one news outlet (i.e. NYT + NPR)?
What processes can be put in place that will ensure that the goals of balance and fairness is met without interfering with the freedom of speech?
- Posted by Jean-MarcLittle can be said after Ambassador Diego Arria’s devastating comments on the highly unethical behavior of Reuters journalists in covering the Constitutional Referendum in Venezuela last week, and the terrible consequences that our society could had faced with the active aid of Reuters news falsification. A remake of a score well known down here. Reuters journalists must have been aware that in the presidential elections of 2006 a poorly reputed news service (TeleSUR) had done exactly the same. For jumping the gun they were highly criticized and if the journalist for such illegal action did not end in jail, it was, precisely, because they were on the government payroll. It is very difficult to think that experienced journalists forgot that and but worst, that they can be so easily mislead. Did them not know that all polls and political signs indicated that almost surely the government was going to be defeated that day? I urge the editors to act beyond the simple sorry of Sean Maguire and reveal the true nature of what happened that day. It is necessary to preserve ethical values to inquire, to look more closely into the matter and give the reader a more credible explanation. Otherwise, I am afraid that on the eyes of the Venezuelan readers, your credibility will be null in the future.
- Posted by Jaime RequenaThe heat in Venezuela is relative to the hot air that emits from the Bush Administration and the perverse ideology of inequality and rights only of the conservative republican kind and their cohorts with the same modus operandi. The new currency is oil. Venezuela has it and we have to pay the inflated price and the structure of the flawed economical system that we have created. It is there glaring us in the face, but our own dysfunctional mentality ingrained by the rotten to the core politicians and communal denial fails to either admit or see it.
The 64 dollar question that non of these gurus wants to answer is that if great system of economic was so good and viable then why all these new theories, formulas, more variable, options, adjustments, rate changes, money controls that the bean counters keep on introducing too often. The basic of credit and debt balance is being ignored.
Simple solution is to remove the megalomaniac, compulsive-obsessive, sociopath, with his divine religious mandate and being the messenger of his god the herr Mr. MBA President, responsible for this mess from office for the country and the world to move on. That is a no brainer.
- Posted by ChuiReuters is being used as part of the whole plan of “4th generation warfare” against the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela.
Cyberwarfare, media disinformation and such have been going on against Chavez since 1998 and we will find a way to counter act against it soon.
Reuters should leave Venezuela along with the rest of the capitalist cabal, while they can.
- Posted by Cort GreeneDear sir
I am translator working for an english newspaper in a non-english speakig country.
- Posted by MehreganI rad your article, while I apreciated the conyents of yor analyzes, I was astonished by your style of writting, which is absolutly unique and fantastic.
I looked for the idiom of Taking Heat bu never could find a defenition for it in any dictionary.
It is of yor kindness to expain me about the title of yor article.
Regards
mehregan
[…] Why we are taking heat in Venezuela: The Web log of the Reuters Editors explains how it, too, called the Venezuelan referendum wrong. […]
- Posted by Reuters Rues Its Referendum: High Standards and High-Level Hearsay « The New Market Machines