Reuters Editors

Our editors & readers talk

Changing journalism; changing Reuters

October 15, 2010

Think back a century and news needs and news methods were completely different.

Just think that the first airmail flight between Britain and Hong Kong did not land until 1936. And yet today at my home in London I get a rich and vibrant stream of  news, photographs, stories and gossip from Asia into my home  via Twitter, Facebook, Google Reader and then all the more long-established methods of journalism.  It is a cornucopia.

But the problem with any over-flowing horn is that it is really only scarcity that creates the awareness of value.

And in fact, the profession of journalism is losing both value and respect.

The latest Gallup poll showed a record-high 57% of Americans saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to do what the media has always proclaimed to be its primary mission – to report fully, accurately and fairly.

Instead people look to the friends – their community – for information, for validation, for argument and for illumination.

What is great about 2010 is that technology has created a completely new concept of community. And it has given that community new powers to inform and connect.

Facebook status updates become a newsfeed created by people I know and even often like.

A Twitter feed is a news service of facts, opinions and referrals from an ever-vigilant army of people with similar interests and proclivities.

They alert me to news and articles that are almost guaranteed to fit my interests because we are a group that has formed around each other.

And it is a self-correcting group, where each of us has the ability to fire, replace and refine the membership at will.

No reader selected me to be editor-in-chief of Reuters – I was selected by the corporation to lead the news service in its interest.

Conversely, no corporation selected the people whom I follow on Twitter, no board set my blogroll, no executive committee befriended my Facebook pals. I did those things.

What technology has done is it has upended the power equation to give control to the end consumer.

The beauty of that is obvious – control is always satisfying.

The danger is that without care it becomes an information universe that is too hermetically sealed.

The days of the all-powerful paternalistic editor may be dead, but what can’t replace them is the era of people only having their preconceived ideas reinforced.

What’s needed is a new model, one that combines push and pull.

What’s needed is a publishing model that embraces both the professionalism of the journalist and the power of the community.

The great press critic A. J. Liebling wrote that freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one. Today’s technology means that the means of production and the means of distribution actually belong to anyone with access to an Internet onramp.

If you ask the public, “What will you pay for?” The answer is certainly a yes for tools (ipad, iphone, blackberry, android). The answer is certainly a yes for broadband and access.

But what about the content? And what about those who create that content?

Far too often the answer is “no”.

I know even when I last lived in Hong Kong 15 years ago this was an issue the FCC itself had to wrestle with – what was the ideal ratio of full-time correspondent members to journalist members to associate members to corporate members.

I guess from seeing the special promotional offer the club has been running for new correspondent and journalist members that this is still an issue, both because there are fewer people who fit the bill, and also because those who do can’t necessarily PAY the bill.

I’m lucky to be leading a journalistic organization 3,000 professionals strong – that’s an extraordinary figure at a time when other organizations have been shedding staff.

By comparison, in 1987, the year I joined Reuters in Hong Kong and the year I first became a member of this club, I was one of 1,581 journalists in the company.

We’ve survived and thrived by changing.

We aren’t the agency we once were; tomorrow we will be even more different from today.

My job is to ensure that survival and to ensure that the journalistic tradition of yesterday melds with the social media ethos.

Let’s start by thinking back two years.

The photographs of distraught, confused and angry bankers leaving their offices jobless helped symbolize the seismic shifts in the financial system 24 months ago.

During the same period, thousands of journalists lost their livelihood too as the profession and craft changed almost beyond recognition.

If we have learned anything from these past two years, it has been that pure facts are not enough.

Pure facts don’t tell enough of the story; pure facts won’t earn their way.

The arguments about whether the factual seeds of the financial crisis had been adequately reported are ultimately meaningless. The facts were there. But they weren’t put together in a way that was compelling enough or powerful enough to change the course of events.

We’ve been drowning in facts, and that deluge continues to threaten.

How different from October 1851 when Julius Reuter set up his pigeon and telegraph shop, sending out facts to a world starved for them.

Today, it’s context, connectedness and community that matter.

That’s why the traditional agency or “wire” pouring out a never-ending stream of “more” can’t be the answer.

That’s why we must be a service to our customers and to our readers.

That’s why this is the age of the publisher.

Journalists who understand this will survive. Those that don’t will become irrelevant.

A publishing ethos is not defined by the number of stories we deliver. It is defined by our ability to keep our clients tuned in and returning. We will do that with a heightened knowledge of what they need, and with focused breaking news and insight that is fast, relevant, actionable and engaging. Deploying all our multimedia assets allows us to tell stories compellingly via packages of interlinked news and information. And we will enable clients to connect to each other, and to us.

I’m as excited about content that gets created in a chatroom by journalists and readers interacting together as I am about a good story being pushed out. Sometimes I’m even more excited because the intelligent interaction between people who all know something about a topic can create a much smarter product than any one writer struggling at the computer alone.

Is it journalism?

Sometimes it is pure journalism. Sometimes it’s commentary. Sometimes it’s just a sharing of ideas or the annotating of a graphic.

But whatever you call it, it is an intelligent service between the journalist and the customer and that’s something we should be aiming for.

Why? Because like the “pure” journalism of old, it helps makes sense of the world.

Why? Because it is news, data, content and information that is actionable because it adds insight to transparency.

It’s the community that interacts with information and in that interaction creates yet more and better content.

It’s the context and analysis around the news that helps people make better decisions, helps them do their jobs better, and gives them an edge in making sense out of the confusion around us.

It is also the humility to know that the old one-way relationship between editor and audience has no place in the world any more.

There’s huge learning to be had from the audience.

Some of it comes from listening to its expertise. Some of it comes from watching its behavior. Much of it comes from enabling the conversation you get when you combine facts, data, journalism, analysis and fact-based opinion in a really smart way.

The rules of today’s journalistic world are these:

Knowing the story is not enough.

Telling the story is only the beginning.

The conversation about the story is as important as the story itself.

The more you try to be paternalistic and authoritative, the less people will believe you.

The more you cede control to your audience, the more people will respect you

The more you embrace new technology as a platform, the more your ideas will compete.

The more you abandon the faceless and characterless, the more you can set the agenda

The more you look beyond the story for connections, the more value you will have.

And if you have value and no one else does, you will get paid.

Simple? No.

But it is exciting and transforming.



Even though you are completely right not one iota of this article of any value for predicting the future of journalism. This article only reaffirms today’s more bottom-up nature of journalism, business and society in general – everything and everybody is more a slave of economic mechanisms than ever before.
To me it sounds like Reuters mantra is going to be “go for the masses”, more “readers” means more money and making money just means giving people want they want (or spoil them even). There is little differentiation between what people SHOULD know (and what news agencies hire journalists and editors for) and what they WANT to know.
There may be an abundance of “information” these days (and easy ways to receive it) but high quality journalism is still just as scarce as it ever was, perhaps even exiguous.
If this article is an indication of things to come Reuters wont be much more than a push button news organization where content consumers decide what the machine puts out.
The late and well respected Dutch journalist Jan Blokker mentioned this bottom-up mechanism of news in one of his articles shortly before his passing away this year. Basically Jan explained how this sentiment arose that there is an increasing amount of crap on TV and in published media, it’s because economic factors determine content rather than people who have been educated and trained to do research, write, photograph and film.
Europe is starting to look more and more like America and that’s a shame. Case in point, try watching the US version of your “best” and oh so serious news channel, CNN, and compare that to for example Euronews or even our Dutch news programmes (RTL, NOS). Eventhough the later are far from perfect at least I don’t have to wacht all the BS people want to hear but capable and well trained intellectual individuals give us the news that’s worth hearing and seeing (not 8 hour marathons on Michael Jackson’s funeral, OJ’s trial, Britney Spears’ new dresscode etc.).
Perhaps it’s time for you to read Ortega y Gasset’s “Revolt of the Masses”, the time has come only it wasn’t a revolt it was a revolution and no one noticed it because they were busy refreshing their Facebook page.

Posted by Photojourno | Report as abusive

This is a great piece – we are already seeing this kind of networked journalism in action – our latest research report has lots of case studies. It is available here:
We should also think about what kind of publisher we are going to be – here are some thoughts from my blog:
Charlie Beckett,
Director, Polis, London School of Economics

Posted by CharlieBeckett | Report as abusive


1. Your article is too long.
2. If you want respect, you have to show that you respect your audience: If your staff inject their political views into nearly every piece of news they report (e.g. the continuous “unexpected” bad news farce), and if so much stuff you publish is non-news (i.e. neither new nor meaningful), your organization won’t get the respect you want.

Posted by yr2009 | Report as abusive

“And if you have value and no one else does, you will get paid.”

That’s a pretty high bar to set. You get paid only if you tower over thousands of others, who have no value. A new way to reduce salary costs?

Posted by Komment | Report as abusive

yaa….but… today’s Reuters there’s an article rehash of Shaun Donovan’s blog-editorial posted this morning on the HuffPost. ? …two Reuters reporters got a byline from rehashing the HuffPost blog along with the ‘newswire’ data on Sheila Bair’s media statements regarding the FDIC investigations…? No links to original stories in their rehash article, nor to the HuffPost, nor any insightful connection with/to other economic data…?

Posted by ConnieDonoghue | Report as abusive

Embedding the American journalists into the US military establishment while invading Iraq in 2003 was counter-productive, if not suicidal, for the media’s credibility. The U.S. men and women in uniform believed what their commanders told about WMD. The U.S. people also believed what their leaders told about WMD. The leading media outfits echoed the U.S. establishment, instead of challenging it. The common people, in the U.S. and elsewhere, lost faith on the media. Credibility is like a glass-sheet. A crack on it is as bad as getting fully smashed. People’s reluctance in paying for news content is temporary. Buying water in sealed bottles didn’t exist in most of the Asia 25 years back. Now it’s a booming business. Convincing the consumers about the value of a product is the investors’ call. Journalists are nothing but process-workers in the fast-transforming news industry. Good journalism shall make money, as it always did.

Posted by AbuKhan | Report as abusive

This is neither an article nor an essay. It is a promotion, the objective being to convince us how concerned and committed both you and Reuters are to embracing the changing role of journalism. I’m not convinced, primarily because what you say has been said a hundred times before. There are no insights, only platitudes. If you are committed to change, then change your approach. Instead of shopworn observations, give me insight, give me ideas, give me some kind of hope that you are not only ready but able to offer a product more creative and engaging than what you offer now. And a good place to start would be with your editorials.

Posted by johnrovito | Report as abusive

“The arguments about whether the factual seeds of the financial crisis had been adequately reported are ultimately meaningless.”

Wow. Big mouthful there, Mr. Editor. Not just meaningless but “ultimately”.

I mean, honestly, you had me until that little stunner.

So … I guess a mea culpa over several trillion lost from right under the noses of the world’s best financial journalists is out of the question, then, right?

Yes? No?

Ah, well, maybe we can get a little interactivity from Reuters on what steps this agency is taking to ensure their journos do not get hoodwinked on behalf of all us – over and over again?

. . .

Posted by jasonbrown1965 | Report as abusive

Post Your 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