Comments on: Are we now too speedy for our own good?

By: eddieblack

eddieblack — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:26:38 +0000

Dec 14th 2009 you ran an opinion piece on global warming by Dr.Fred Singer. No where in his article did he state he was a paid advocate for the automotive and oil industries. Further he did not state that his educational back round is electrical engineering and physics, not oceanography or atmospheric studies. His commentary would lead on to think otherwise.

Does no one on your staff check the credentials or review the veracity of the commentary offered by contributors to your opinion page?

By: Norbert Cannon

Norbert Cannon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:50:13 +0000

Talk about out the gate too fast. Today you ran a story:
Gold at new record on wobbly dollar, global stocks weak
First line read:
LONDON (Reuters) – Gold rose above $1,120 an ounce to a fresh record high on Thursday, the U.S. dollar hovered near 15-month lows while shares weakened, particularly in emerging markets

At 1249 MST 12Nov2009 in Idaho
Gold is at 1108.00 (COMEX: GCX09.CMX)
Not sure what numbers you folks look at to prognosticate doom

CHEERS;)

By: Casper

Casper — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:45:40 +0000

Thanks JF(K)(sic).

We carry on about the speed of light, but we have examples right in front of our eyes: TV, word of mouth, gossip and text messages. I would prefer accurate reporting and quality opinion, which Reuters clearly strives for. Reporting at below the speed of light would also take pressure off ridiculous deadlines and give Reuters’ staff more time to party.

By: Jocomus

Jocomus — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:45:48 +0000

Unfortunately speed and accuracy have an inverse relationship, aggravated by propensity to guess. And if guessed right, you are the leader of news upbeat. When the Thai emperor was hospitalized, it seemed the media more inclined to say he was in critical condition than to say he was recovering.

By: JF

JF — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:23:25 +0000

I also think the scoop and speed thing is nonsense. And
obviously on the way out. The media have lost most of their
revelance to the consumers. So while the media is
desperately trying to upscale the importance and relevance of what they are doing all too often attempting to maintain the self-importance, get attention one way or another, the vanishing consumers, those “media maxed” are having the real power now.
A look at the good-bye page of the Rocky Mountain News
permits a look back at that speed and sensationalist
business, what it was like – history by now -
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/

And very telling was the very last news of the closure
of the website that was set up by the former journalists
of that paper because it could just get 200 subscribers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-newspa per-staffers-denver-news-site-to-end-200 9-10

Gone with the wind. And that is understandably
hard to stomoch for those in the media circus. (I
wouldn’t be worried that much about Reuters, the bell
tolls rather for others.)

By: Casper

Casper — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:59:01 +0000

This whole scoop and speed thing is nonsense. How fast can fast be ? While a third of the World sleeps, events unfold everywhere and elsewhere. It’s not like we get online Minority Report streaming. Most of us wake up the next morning and assimilate old news. At work we hardly ever check the news unless something major happens. Scoops have a lifespan of about 15 minutes before it takes on a life of its own and the rest of the show carries on as normal. They most probably make up <1% of all news. I have not seen many apologies this year, so facts must have been correct. Then one should also not confuse opinion with facts, which maybe is the problem that ‘am-bj’ above is experiencing. A columnist creates debate by opinion, there is no time-keeper though, and the floor is therefore open until it gets archived, even then it may still carry on, as it often does.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:57:25 +0000

Remember the reporting on operation cast lead? The bombing of Gaza?

The report that the Israelis had hit a UN hospital? All the outrage and fury which resulted from that report?

Only for the media to find out that the shell had actually landed outside the hospital…

But that was never the point, was it?

By: Michael Grazebrook

Michael Grazebrook — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:13:00 +0000

“Respect is won by breaking news” – maybe ‘breaking’ is the key. There’s a window of time between breaking news and verifying it. If it’s clearly marked as ‘breaking’, and the tag doesn’t last too long, we’d be better able to judge.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:21 +0000

Reuters should concentrate on accuracy, not speed. There are hundreds of new sources out there that will always beat you on speed, so you add nothing new. Wikipedia is usually faster than Reuters.

The point is when you see X has died on Wikipedia/Twitter/Google News, you don’t KNOW that it is true. You wait until the BBC reports it, then it MUST be true. Would be nice if Reuters was like that.

To the extent that you still want speed you should use super cautious wording. Perhaps write this:
“At 12:79pm CNN reported X has happened. Reuters has been unable to verify this independently, but is working on it now.”
Then at least you are showing that you are not reporting it because of verification rather than unimportance.

By: Alby

Alby — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:17:19 +0000

It is clear from the editorial above as well as Reuters’ track record that they are not in the business of publishing “unconfirmed rumors”.

Anyone who expects news to be double and triple fact-checked before it is posted online understands neither journalism nor the Internet.

An intrinsic aspect of news is that it changes: facts are unearthed, stories develop, and the goal of understanding the world around us is never fully reached. Would you have no important information ever be reported on for the sake of ultimate precision?

In my opinion Reuters has proven itself to be abundantly cautious.