Blogger disowns 'biased' Reuters report

“The article is particularly problematic from my perspective because I’m incredibly proud of Reuters’s long tradition of impartial journalism,” Felix Salmon, pictured, wrote after the article drew a burst of criticism in the blogosphere.

“I’m on the opinion side, not bound by such things, and if you think I’m biased you’re right. (I should mention here explicitly that this post, just like everything else on this blog, is my personal opinion. It may or may not be shared by others within the organization. But it should emphatically not be taken as representing the views of Thomson Reuters.)

“Reuters news stories like the one about OWS are held to a very high standard of integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. And there’s lots in this article which tilts hard to the right," Salmon wrote.

“Reuters cannot — must not — get a reputation as a right-wing media outlet. We have to report the news as impartially as we can. In this case, there was no story, and nothing to report. Inventing a tenuous and intellectually-dishonest link between Soros and OWS might get us traffic from Matt Drudge — but that’s traffic which, frankly, we don’t particularly value or care for. Much more importantly, it serves to undermine the heart of what Reuters stands for. And we can never afford to do that.”

The offending article headed “Who’s behind the Wall Street protests?” began: “Anti-Wall Street protesters say the rich are getting richer while average Americans suffer, but the group that started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world’s richest men.”

Soros and the protesters deny any connection, it said. “But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street.”

As adverse comment mounted, editors recast the article with a denial by Soros’s spokesman. Jim Impoco, executive editor for Thomson Reuters Digital, tweeted: “Here’s an update cum clarification of Reuters’ Soros-Occupy Wall Street story.” The update was headed “Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests”. It began: “George Soros isn’t a financial backer of the Wall Street protests, despite speculation by critics including radio host Rush Limbaugh that the billionaire investor has helped fuel the anti-capitalist movement.”

New York magazine commented: “The wire service and aspiring ‘best journalism organization in the world’ ran an odd story this morning, insinuating that billionaire financier George Soros is secretly funding the Occupy Wall Street protests. The evidence, unlike the innuendo, is awfully thin.”

It concluded: “This story might not be out of place on Fox News, but at Reuters, which has always taken pains to stay above the partisan fray, it smells suspiciously like Drudge bait. (Sure enough, The Drudge Report ran a link to the item, with the headline: “WIRE: Who’s behind ‘Occupy’?”) For a company that “aims to report the facts, no rumours,” an attempt to tie Occupy Wall Street to conservatives’ favorite billionaire boogeyman feels poorly thought-out, at best.”

Among reader comments on the Reuters report:

• “Yellow journalism at its finest. Shame on Reuters.”
• “Yet more evidence that editorial standards at Reuters continue to hit new lows.

Media commentator Jay Rosen examined the story – in all its versions – in detail and remarked: “Reuters vs. Reuters: News agency makes an ass of itself by trying to connect George Soros to Occupy Wall Street.” ■