Reuters Editors
Our editors & readers talk
Changing journalism; changing Reuters
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.
“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?
. . .