Dubious ethics

Of course, Bob Evans is right [Editor’s ‘ethically dubious’ order challenged].

Jim Gaines, Reuters’ editor for The Americas recruited by editor-in-chief Stephen Adler in April 2011 at the height of the “crony-gate” hirings, amazingly says: “When a legitimate rival (anyone from our big-media competitors to authoritative blogs) gets a solid scoop that will either move a stock or be likely to influence traders and investors in your patch, you must pick it up immediately, with snaps if it’s a possible stock-mover. Then you should put out calls to sources and otherwise reach out for help.”

So at 1:07 pm on 23 April this year when AP tweeted: “Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama injured,” you rush to snap it according to Gaines’s logic. Well, why not? It’s certainly a market-mover and you don’t want to lose a few seconds by checking back with the White House.

After all, he instructs: “Our financial clients pay us to give them news no one else has, of course, but they also count on us to tell them quickly about hot news from our rivals that will either move a stock - or even the market - or drive the conversation. When we delay news on a big story because we want to match it first or for whatever reason, we have denied our clients the best information available and so failed them and ourselves.”

America’s benchmark stock index lost more than 134 points or more than a full per cent of its value in a matter of seconds, and possibly $20 billion worth of equity positions changed hands on the New York Stock Exchange during the brief trading hiccup.

Hiccup? Yes, hiccup, because AP’s Twitter account had been hacked and the story was a fake. But in the world according to Jim Gaines we would have picked it up, since we don’t want to delay it “for whatever reason,” propagating the error even further, a major concern in these days of super-hacking and cyber high jinks. ■