What were they thinking?

The Armed Forces Covenant, signed by a corporate lawyer and announced by the company’s chief operating officer for human resources, raises a number of questions, chief of which is What Were They Thinking? And what prompted this extraordinary departure from decades of efforts to avoid association with any government or group? The two obviously fail to understand the value of Reuters reputation for freedom from bias and the dangers for reporters covering conflict in countries where Western military forces are seen with suspicion and hostility. But all that aside, the logic of pledging support for the British military is baffling. Reuters headquarters are no longer in London and the misleading label “the British news agency” has largely disappeared. So, Mr Sandham and Ms Case, why not express support for the Canadian Armed Forces, now that the company is based in Toronto? Or, given Reuters sizeable presence in the US, the American military? Inquiring minds want to know.

To elaborate on an incident during the 1982 Falklands War Bob Evans mentioned in his trenchant comment, here’s an account from The Power of News, the official history of Reuters: “Reuters emphasised that it was no more concerned with the British national interest than with that of Argentina. When the secretary of the ‘D’ Notice (censorship) committee, Rear Admiral William Ash, telephoned [Manfred] Pagel, the editor, to complain because Reuters had reported the presence of the British fleet near Ascension Island, he was given a short answer. Ash asked if Pagel was not concerned about the safety of “our forces”. Pagel, whose German accent must have been noticed, replied that this was Ash’s business and not that of Reuters. “I am not British.”

It’s a response that would have been difficult had there been a Reuters-backed Armed Forces Covenant. ■