Reuters Editors
Our editors & readers talk
Transparency and the role of media in China
The following is the text of a speech to be given to the Xinhua World Media Summit on October 9. David Schlesinger is the Editor-in-Chief of Reuters.
It is my great honour to address this gathering here today in Beijing.
Reuters association with China began in the 19th century, when the agency began supplying financial and commodities information to clients here.
By the 1930’s, Shanghai was our Asian headquarters.
Today, our offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong provide vibrant newsgathering for our global clients who demand information about this vital economy and provide centres for Chinese clients whose need for reliable and instant information about the world’s finances is intense.
From the beginning, Reuters Chinese name was important. 路透社 – the 透 that is the key second character is part of several important words, each of which is central to our mission
Giant shoulders and the chain of knowledge
The new world is not so different from the old world – it just moves faster and in different ways.
As early as the 12th century, the image of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants came into discourse to mean that all knowledge advances based on the discoveries of the past.
In academia and in journalism that notion has been coupled with the doctrine of attribution – you need to acknowledge the shoulders you’re standing on, to give due credit but also to allow others to search out that perch and see if their view from it is any different.
To me, the current debate about the “Link Economy” in content terms is about:
Are you part of the conversation? Are you adding to the debate or just playing postman and passing others’ views on? Are you adding value and … Are you getting rewarded for adding the value you do?
As head of a journalistic army of 2,700 professionals I obviously have an intense vested interest in ensuring that their work is valuable to readers and valued by them.
Part of that involves ensuring that they are in the centre of the action and that they fill their reports with their expertise and experience. Part of that involves ensuring that they are part of the debate, that their reports inform the debate and that the debate, in turn, informs their future reporting.
Kudos on your continued embrace of the link economy. And for your early embrace, on these shores, of Opinion …
Rethinking rights, accreditation, and journalism itself in the age of Twitter
The follow is the text of a speech by David Schlesinger, Editor-in-Chief Reuters News, to the International Olympics Committee Press Commission on June 23.
On May 29th, James Coleman of Bristol smacked his skull on a tree branch while filing updates to the Twitter service (or tweeting) from his Blackberry during a run. His accident spawned a new word: a “Twinjury”.
Just think about it: Jogging, Blackberrying, tweeting simultaneously – what more 21st century manifestation of the spirit of amateur sportsmanship could there be?
That same day, St. Petersburg Times sports journalist Rick Stroud tweeted on his Twitter page about US Football developments: “Hearing reports that Bucs might be interested in Marvin Harrison,” he wrote to anyone following his feed.
His reader/followers read it and believed what he wrote.
Turned out, though, Stroud had different standards for his Twitter account than for his newspaper.
“People, if I tweet something…it’s … speculation,” he said. “If there’s news, I’ll post it on Tampabay.com.”
Brilliantly said. Your audience needs to understand that the “anyone can and does publish” djinni is out of the bottle. Your industry need to go with that flow.
from Davos Notebook:
The shift in power from West to East
One news theme I've asked our journalists to be alert to this year is the shift in power and emphasis from est to East.
The rise of China's economic power during 30 years of reform and opening to the world is just one manifestation of this; the knowledge and service powerhouse that India has come in a globalised world is another. At Davos this year I'm moderating a panel on Asian innovation that will surely highlight software advances in Japan, Korea and Thailand as well.
I'm convinced the current global economic crisis must lead to a fundamental reassessment of how power and influence is expressed through the world, from manufacturing and service oriented Asia through the oil-rich Gulf.
This isn't because of "decoupling" - that notion so prominent in discussion circles a year or so ago that said things like China's economic boom could make up for any economic weakness in the U.S. That idea has been well and truly discredited as trade and money flows have caused bank after bank, nation after nation and economy after economy to buckle and bend in the current crisis.
No, it's precisely because of "coupling" that the world will have to rethink radically its governance and regulatory and influence structures.
I see today's opening session at the World Economic Forum as emblematic of this shift. The two world leaders taking centre stage at Davos today are not from the United States or from the United Kingdom or from France or Germany or Italy or Japan or Canada.
from For the Record:
Reporting in Gaza: Striving for fairness
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
Let’s say it up front: Almost all of you will find something in this column to take issue with.
That’s because the subject is the conflict in Gaza and perceptions of bias in reporting on it. News consumers detect media bias on any number of subjects, but there is nothing like the continuing Mideast conflict to bring out the passions of partisans on all sides.
Here’s a small sample of some of the more restrained comments that have come in to the Reuters reader feedback line:
--“It seems like the whole world wants to condemn Israel for the war/actions it's taking. Sorry Reuters but for me, I can see right through your pro Palestinian slant. Why don't you investigate how a U.N. Camp was used as a staging area for Hamas rockets? …”
--“Your pro Israel reporting from Gaza makes one thing perfectly clear. Israel has some control over Reuters. You are in their pocket. Why else would you choose to slant information?”
--“Why does Reuters insist on letting someone such as Nidal al-Mughrabi cover the war on Gaza? His reporting is completely biased and filled with inflammatory rhetoric. Doesn't Reuters have a reporter that understands both sides of the issue and that can JUST REPORT THE NEWS!! I consider such reporting on your part as an insult to my intelligence. Why must you participate in antisemitic propaganda?”
A very well-reasoned summary of your challenges and successes in covering a devastating event under such debilitating conditions. Kudos to you for the astounding effort. I believe Reuters in the pre-eminent source for news on the conflict given your boots-on-the-ground and the US mainstream media’s refusal to provide accurate information from Gaza.
And the band played on: covering the economic crisis
I recently visited one of the most frightening sites on the Web—the place where I look at my shrinking retirement account.
As I calculated the investment loss since the steep decline in the markets began, and particularly since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid-September, some questions arose (in addition to: Will I ever be able to retire?).
–Did we in the media do our job in reporting on the run-up to the crisis?
–Now that an “official” recession has been declared in the U.S. and the depth of the crisis is becoming clearer around the world, are we in the media keeping things in perspective? Should we even be using words like “crisis” or “meltdown?”
On the first question, I can’t help thinking of Claude Rains’ “Casablanca” character Captain Renault, who was “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on” in Rick’s club. In hindsight, given the current state of the financial markets, wasn’t it obvious a problem was brewing?
Not necessarily. And it probably wouldn’t have been obvious to anyone reading online or print coverage or watching television news in the United States.
A look at a study by the Pew Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism indicates that, in the United States, coverage of the economy was pretty much drowned out by coverage of the presidential election—at least until the two stories converged in mid-September. Indeed, as the Pew material shows, in the month preceding the week of Sept. 15, which saw the Lehman bankruptcy, the Merrill Lynch sale, the AIG bailout and large drops in share prices, the proportion of the news hole devoted to the economy reached a low for the year, filling only 4.8 percent of the time on television and radio and space in the print and online media. Since then, that focus has shifted, as the presidential campaign narrative became, again, “it’s the economy, stupid,” and as the presidential transition has focused on U.S. economic problems.
Is journalism about reporting or investigating? We can all blog and report and describe what’s happening, the media is no longer needed for that. We can all report numbers and say what other people told us they mean. What we need is investigative journalism that tests the assumptions that are being made, that shines the spotlight on those who gave bad predictions and that helps us understand where and why did we get it so wrong.
Day One of the new Reuters News
This is Day One of the new Reuters News, a news organization that is part of Thomson Reuters, the company formed when two great leaders of news and information came together.
As Editor-in-Chief, I want to assure you that the Reuters News you will see will maintain its commitment to independent, trustworthy, useful news; news that is free from bias and filled with the insight you need.
That’s the excellence that saw us recently win, among other awards, a Pulitzer Prize for spot photography and a Society of American Business Editors and Writers award for commentary.
Over the next weeks and months, we will combine the best from the old Reuters news and from Thomson Financial news; we’ll be bringing together people and services. Most of the difference will be seen immediately on our desktop products for financial professionals, but over time I’m sure you’ll see new bylines and data on our Reuters Media consumer-facing sites as well.
My commitment is for Reuters News to be the global, insightful and innovative powerhouse you want to serve your news needs in words, pictures and video. There are more than two and a half thousand professional journalists around the world backing up my words with their actions every minute of every day of the year. David Schlesinger is Editor-in-Chief, Reuters News, Thomson Reuters
Count me among the skeptics as well. Reuters seems to have relaxed its editorial quality standards over the years in the name of “innovation” that mainly consists of recycling news from “content partners” that has not been independently checked. This is particularly true of international coverage from stringers that seem to operate without any adult supervision. Its coverage of the Kenyan elections was particularly shameful and inept. The company’s record on labor relations and safety is disturbing, as are the promiscuous relations between the company and the “philanthropreneurial” projects of the Reuters Foundation, which seems to be a perfect example of Naomi Klein’s apt thesis on “disaster capitalism.” I am not a fan, or a regular reader, obviously. Maintaining the old standards is not going to be sufficient to get me to start paying attention again.
If you hate a government, you call it “censorship”. If you love it, you call it “moderation”. Just as not every comment is approved for post here.