Are news agencies worth it?

CNN dumped AP services at the end of June saying it could do better putting that money to work increasing its own news gathering sources. It had done the same with Reuters back in 2007 but the two now have resumed some relationship under an Agreement that Reuters will supplement CNN on breaking news. CNN still has Agence France-Presse in English.

But when it came to textual breaking news CNN never really got rid of Reuters. Many times afterwards on a breaking news story anchors would quote reuters.com as the source. No doubt editors at cnn.com are continuously monitoring news sites that pour out AP and other agency breaking news, often with very little if any delay after paying customers get the information. Look at cnn.com and just about every news item is “By the CNN Wire Staff” which in the trade is usually another way of saying a rewrite of some other news source. It also runs feature material based on its own programming.

It brings to mind what used to happen in the UK - newspapers would rewrite the first paragraph of a news agency story and then stick on the credit line at the top, “By Our Foreign Staff”. In those days it wasn’t the cost of buying agency news that was an issue, but rather editors wanted to fool their readers that all the content came from their own resources and Heaven forbid they had to rely on someone else. It was only when the agencies, led by Reuters, started going after Fleet Street newspapers and threatening to cut off service unless the credit paragraphs of the contracts were strictly adhered to that the UK newspapers changed their ways. Of course, today, if truth be told, most newspapers couldn’t say “By Their Foreign Staff” because most of that staff has long since been made redundant!​

With cheap news a needed commodity these days some smart entrepreneur should set up a big warehouse in Bangalore and stuff it with people monitoring the world’s Web news sites

With cheap news a needed commodity these days some smart entrepreneur should set up a big warehouse in Bangalore and stuff it with people monitoring the world’s Web news sites. They could easily produce “good enough” regional and international text news reports for most with access available online. No doubt the news agencies with actual feet on the ground will be the first with the news, but unless you’re dealing with the financial community, or perhaps a 24-hour news channel, being first is not as important as one might think. Cheap counts big-time these days which is why, for instance, in the US several newspapers within various states have set up their own co-operative news gathering, even using one another’s own news, as a way to save money over AP fees. 

News picture services these days today would not be too hard to set up in a similar vein given all the citizen journalists out there happy to give away their shots for free credit.

Electronic camera pixel quality is now good enough and the Web takes care of delivery. Sure, the big agencies will have better quality and will probably be first and better positioned at set events, but is that so important - is it worth that much money these days? Video is a tougher nut to crack. Skype quality is now used everywhere, but amateur mobile phone quality still leaves a lot to desire. That one will stay in the province of the news agencies for a while longer.

“Good enough” has been with us for a long time as a means of deciding one’s news source. This writer, who worked for news agencies for 30 years, still has not forgotten a former client’s comment on whether he missed a particular more expensive service. “Phil, there is no question that your service is better, much better than what we now have. But I have to tell you that for our needs the service we now have is good enough.”

If CNN has figured out a way of less expensively, while legally staying on the right side of copyright law, being able to provide its international viewers and Web audiences with a credible “good enough” news service while putting more resources into its own operation then so be it not only for them but also for others.

News agencies are going to find themselves in more and more “good enough” situations. In Germany, for instance, dpa has a fight on its hands with DAPD that bought out the AP German-language service last year. dpa has foreign correspondents; DAPD will be relying on translating the English language AP wire for its foreign content. The big WAZ group cancelled dpa last year, but Axel Springer kept them and dumped DAPD. A recovering German economy would be good news for dpa because it would be the agency of choice, all things being equal, but faltering advertising revenues could write a different script.

Truth is, it’s always hard to do away with news sources that you have relied on for so long. If managers asked their news staff they would usually vote to keep what they have, especially if it is the best. Finances have always played a major role in the decision making but editorial wishes played their part, too. In today’s business environment, however, those editorial wishes may no longer carry the weight they once did leaving “good enough” for many as the benchmark.

Philip Stone for some 30 years held management positions with UPI and then Reuters before being culled by the latter in 2002. At Reuters his activities ranged from being Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) news product manager - on the original marketing team that developed News 2000 and RFTV - commercial director of Reuters Television and his final post, in Geneva where he still resides, was as managing director, media, EMEA. He now does media consultancy work and since 2004 he has been a partner and frequent contributor to followthemedia.com, a daily website commenting on media matters in Europe and North America where this article first appeared. ■