William Haley and the Trust Principles

• That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction;
• That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
• That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts;
• That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and
• That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.

The lofty aspirations of the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles - formerly the Reuters Trust Principles - make impressive reading. They continue to be published annually in the company’s annual report. But what is the story behind them and where did they come from?

William Haley is the man, more than anyone else, who must take credit for introducing the Reuters Trust Principles.

Although an individual of great integrity and possessing imagination, Haley was not much fun. Rather, he was one of those slightly-uncomfortable-to-be-with people who can never tell a lie, even when, perhaps, on social occasions a small one might have helped things along. A shy workaholic, described in his Times obituary as “an embarrassing casual acquaintance”, his was never going to be the first name on the list if you wanted your party to go with a swing. Nonetheless, those who took the trouble to get to know him unfailingly admired his uncompromising commitment to the highest standards, both personal and professional. Haley was also a man who could never be bought.

Having grown up on Jersey, he decided to study journalism. His first job was on The Times which posted him to Brussels. In 1922 he left and moved north to join the editorial staff of The Manchester Evening News. Eight years later, he had become a director of that newspaper and also of its sister title, The Manchester Guardian. The year 1939 saw his promotion to managing director. By this time he had also become a director not only of the Press Association, owner of Reuters), but of Reuters itself.

In 1943, Haley joined the BBC, first as editor-in-chief and then as director general. In 1952, 30 years after first being employed as a young correspondent, he returned to The Times, this time in the all-powerful position of editor. He held the post until 1966 when the paper was bought by Canadian press baron Roy Thomson. Straightaway, Thomson recognised Haley’s unusual and very particular strengths and invited him to become chairman of his newly formed Times Newspapers Ltd.

It was during his years as a Press Association director and director of Reuters, however, that Haley was a major player in important events which were to change the news agency for ever.

despite its formidable reputation, standards at Reuters were slipping. Rival news agencies, such as the Associated Press of America, were recruiting journalists with proven experience. These agencies had also introduced structured in-house training. By contrast, Reuters still tended to recruit primarily by social background. Editorially, it was losing ground

By 1940, during the early years of the World War Two in Europe, all was not well at Reuters. Quite simply, the agency was running out of money. Sir Roderick Jones, its famously autocratic head since 1916 (great grandfather of British prime minister David Cameron’s wife Samantha) faced two seemingly irreconcilable challenges.

Challenge number one was that, despite its formidable reputation, standards at Reuters were slipping. Rival news agencies, such as the Associated Press of America, were recruiting journalists with proven experience. These agencies had also introduced structured in-house training. By contrast, Reuters still tended to recruit primarily by social background. Editorially, it was losing ground.

As the unbiased “News agency of the British Empire” Reuters had, for some years, been facing increasing competition from the new state-funded news agencies of fascist Germany, Italy and Japan. There was a further hidden but more subtle problem. During the late 1930s Reuters had entered into reciprocal agreements with these agencies, under which news stories from both sides would be exchanged. Had Reuters been an unwitting propaganda target?

Lacking additional financial resources, how was Reuters to both raise its reporting standards and extend its coverage in order to compete with competitors in Europe and the United States?

Challenge number two is perhaps more concerning - even if unsurprising. In time of national emergency, the last thing which Winston Churchill’s wartime British government wanted was for Reuters to dissolve into bankruptcy. Therefore, ministers were prepared to shore it up by entering into contracts for some of its news services at much inflated subscriptions. Did this constitute government interference in the way Reuters was run internally? If the British government had not acted in this way, it must be remembered in its defence that there might well have been no Reuters left to run. The total package of government payments added up to a sound business deal - an additional £18,000 per year (equivalent today to a very modest £500,000 or so per year).

Inevitably, though, strings were attached. During verbal discussions, Jones was persuaded to agree “that Reuters would bear in mind any suggestions made to them on behalf of H.M. Government, as to the development or orientation of their news service or as to the topics or events which from time to time might require attention.”

When ultimately challenged by his board, Jones spun this to his directors as something which Reuters had always done, especially in wartime, without it affecting the agency’s “absolute freedom and discretion”.

Some Reuters directors accepted this interpretation. Others, led by Haley, could not. Politics, however, was hard to leave behind. Behind the scenes, a game of double-bluff was being played by ministers who felt privately that not only should Reuters be re-structured but also that Jones should be replaced by Christopher Chancellor, his much younger deputy. Was Haley himself aware of the devious game in play? Chancellor certainly knew. Haley, who was no fool, probably also knew.

There then followed months of complex discussions and negotiations between the Reuters directors. Factions were formed; alliances were made and broken; backs were stabbed - all set against the exhausting months of the Blitz, one of the tensest periods of the war. At the eleventh hour, out of the disorder, emerged a newly re-constituted Reuters. No phoenix rising from the ashes, this was a workable compromise which most parties could accept. Jones was made to resign. A new company was formed, owned and financed as a trust by both the Press Association and the NPA (the Newspaper Proprietors - later Publishers - Association). At its head, just as the government wanted, was a new man, Chancellor. At least Reuters would be able to see out the war as a truly independent news agency. Well, almost independent.

But unexpectedly the Reuters Trust was to be taken a stage further. And for this credit must be given to Haley. Bruised and disillusioned by the events of previous months, he used his strength of personality to persuade his fellow directors to add principles to the new structure.

Devising and wording them himself, and taking as his inspiration the principles which governed The Manchester Guardian, these strived to give a basis for the company’s future unchallengeable integrity, independence and freedom from bias.

More than 70 years later, they remain at the heart of Thomson Reuters. ■