Brouhaha in the blogosphere over spiked story

The manager, Steven Cohen of SAC Capital Advisors, called Devin Wenig, CEO of the markets division that includes Reuters news agency, last month to complain about a story by reporters Matthew Goldstein and Svea Herbst-Bayliss who had been looking into allegations that Cohen engaged in insider trading in the 1980s.

The brouhaha has quickly been taken up in the blogosphere.

“Wenig passed Cohen's concerns onto Schlesinger, who put the kibosh on the story, raising question about what, precisely, the point of Reuters is if rich people can quash inconvenient stories with a phone call,” Manhattan media blog Gawker said.

Schlesinger said in a conference call with staff on Wednesday it was not a bad story and could have run. The call was tense, according to Gawker, which obtained a recording of it. Schlesinger faced down a string of angry and confused Reuters journalists demanding to know precisely why their boss spiked the story, it said.

During the conference call Schlesinger also fielded questions about contract negotiations with the Newspaper Guild of New York and the controversial redesign of the reuters.com website.

“To judge by the conference call, the Cohen episode has severely demoralized the wire service's staff, which was already preoccupied by bitter contract negotiations between its union members and management,” said another blog, Talking Biz News.

“Schlesinger acknowledged that Wenig had called him about the Cohen story, and that after reading it at Wenig's request, he told his deputy Jack Reerink that he had problems with it. But he denounced the ‘false blog stories’ accusing Reuters of caving to a wealthy hedge fund manager and insisted that his concerns had nothing to so with Cohen's complaint. And he lambasted his staffers for ‘running to a blog and spreading[ing] tittle-tattle’ … instead of raising concerns internally.

“Editors make judgments. You might not always agree with those judgments, and that’s fine,” Schlesinger said in the call. “If you disagree with those judgments, then come to me. Keep it within editorial, and don’t go running to a blog.”

At one point near the end of the call the editor-in-chief interrupted one staff member who said that his editorial judgment was on trial. ”My judgment is not on trial here,” he said, apologizing for losing his temper. “It was a question of judgment, and that judgment is not up for a vote or trial.”

Gawker reported: “When Reuters media reporter Robert MacMillan asked his boss what actually happened, and what was wrong with the story, Schlesinger immediately became testy, and bizarrely seemed to say that there wasn't anything wrong with it: ‘We're not going to do news editing by plebiscite... so I'm not going to go into the details of it. The story could have run. I mean, it was not a bad story. It could have run. But I had questions about it.’ Schlesinger said that the decision to kill it wasn't actually his - he raised his questions with Reerink, who made the ultimate decision: ‘I was actually in Tokyo. I said, look, it's up to you, I'm going to bed. He made a decision not to run it. That's it.’”

Schlesinger declined to explain his decision beyond saying “You obviously have a choice - you can either believe me or not. And if you don't believe me, fine. But I'm telling you that I was hired as an editor to make judgments. And I make those judgments free of pressure.”

Talking Biz News said Reerink, global company news editor, wrote a note to staff on Friday in which he mocked the blogs and said: “In the real world, we live by the trust principles. In the real world, we kick back stories for more reporting, balance or insight. In the real world, we don’t run every story just because we wrote it.

“Are we going to be right all the time? No. But we’ll try very hard. And we’ll learn from our mistakes. (and this was not a mistake, by the way).”

Talking Biz News published what it said was an e-mail sent by Schlesinger. It said: “There’s been blog chatter in the US this week that I spiked a story because Devin told me to after he got a call from the story’s putative subject. I know many of our journalists have been concerned by the reports and even wondered if they were true.

“Don’t believe them.

“We make decisions on stories for editorial and journalistic reasons only.

“Those decisions, by their nature, are judgement calls and you of course are always free to question the judgement or debate the issues. But never doubt the commitment of this company and of me to our Trust principles and journalistic ethics.

“In my three years as Editor-in-Chief (and in the three years before that when I was running editorial operations), neither Tom [Glocer, chief executive] nor Devin has ever asked me to kill a story or to run a story. I would have objected loudly if they had.” ■