Stephen Adler spells it out: stick to Reuters standards

“We aim to provide deeper understanding through tough, accurate, fair reporting, not through expressing personal opinions in news coverage or stating or even implying conclusions unless they are rigorously supported by all the facts,” he said in an internal memo obtained by The Baron.

Adler did not refer explicitly to the controversial news item last Thursday which was derided by media critics in the United States for editorial mishandling and failing to meet Reuters’ standards.

“A great virtue of our cherished reputation for accuracy is that readers actually rely on what we write, and they feel betrayed when we fall short of our high standards. We therefore have a responsibility to be worthy of their trust every day. This doesn’t mean every subject of every story has to be pleased with what we have reported,” he said. 

The Newspaper Guild of New York said “the seriously flawed story and the company’s handling of it have drawn strong criticism from inside and outside the company, indicating an erosion of trust in the news we provide”.

The company’s new editor for standards and ethics, Alix Freedman, was quoted by The Atlantic Wire as saying, “We update stories all the time when we get more information.”

“While that’s superficially true, it’s not the whole truth,” the Guild said. “This wasn’t an update; this was a story that was seriously flawed at best, and more likely not a story at all. It should have been corrected or withdrawn in a forthright fashion.”

It added: “One of the worst things about this incident is that it could have been avoided, if the editorial safeguards that have preserved our reputation for decades were followed. They weren’t. The story was stopped on the Americas Desk, questions were raised and it was suggested that the piece be killed or substantially revised. Instead of heeding this advice, managers took over the story and transmitted the flawed version.”

Adler also said he was getting a number of questions about Reuters online op-ed and blogging initiatives. “How, some people inside and outside Reuters are asking, can we purport to be independent and unbiased when we publish opinion columns and edgy online commentaries?”

His answer referred to the Trust Principles established 70 years ago to protect Reuters’ integrity, independence and freedom from bias.

“In my view, the issue comes down to whether we are adding value for our readers,” Adler said. “Are we helping them make smart decisions, achieve fresh insights, and influence the global conversation? We’re already doing this brilliantly through our own financial commentary service, Breakingviews. I believe that providing a forum for other intelligent commentary on a variety of topics also helps fulfill our mission, as long as we disclose clearly that the ideas presented reflect the views of the individual writers and not of Thomson Reuters. As an organization, we are abiding by the Trust Principles because we come to the process with no political or ideological agenda but rather with a straightforward commitment to the vigorous exchange of views in the public interest.”

Following is the complete text of Adler’s note:

Colleagues:

As you know, one of our top editorial priorities is to add insight, context, and depth to our stories to supplement – not replace – the speed, accuracy, and fairness for which Reuters has long been known. The idea is to provide more value to our readers so they can make smart decisions, achieve fresh insights, and influence the global conversation.

This newer focus, with its acceleration of efforts in enterprise reporting, exclusivity, and in-depth coverage of breaking news, has produced some terrific journalism, along with a bit of confusion. To review, here is what I said on the topic when I became editor in chief in February:

“Journalistic excellence will be our hallmark. Reuters does outstanding work across the globe every day. But in order to fulfill Thomson Reuters mission, we have to aim even higher and compete even harder. This means being second to none in speed, accuracy, relevance, and fairness but also and crucially in enterprise, insight, analysis, and originality. Building our strength in these areas is essential to our becoming a must-read among global professionals, who are looking for understanding as well as information.”

To annotate, “speed, accuracy, relevance, and fairness” remain absolutely essential. We aim to provide deeper understanding through tough, accurate, fair reporting, not through expressing personal opinions in news coverage or stating or even implying conclusions unless they are rigorously supported by all the facts.

Someone asked [enterprise editor] Mike Williams on a recent staff call how we could maintain our journalistic standards while embarking on investigative reporting. Mike was a little dumbstruck and responded that high journalistic standards and investigative journalism aren’t just compatible, they are inextricably connected. I entirely agree: We uncover hard-to-get facts through meticulous, dogged reporting, and we report what we learn fairly and dispassionately – with no other agenda than informing our readers. The story’s heat emanates from the depth of reporting and understanding it reflects, not from loose logic, innuendo, or what some internally call “banalysis.”

A great virtue of our cherished reputation for accuracy is that readers actually rely on what we write, and they feel betrayed when we fall short of our high standards. We therefore have a responsibility to be worthy of their trust every day. This doesn’t mean every subject of every story has to be pleased with what we have reported. Indeed, if we are reporting deeply and well, we will uncover wrongdoing and other circumstances that reflect poorly on individuals or institutions.  People will complain. That’s ok. But even when a story is critical, it must be accurate and fair. And when we do make a mistake, we must correct it fully, openly, and as quickly as possible. I know this ethically demanding approach to journalism runs deep in the culture of Reuters. It remains core to our belief system and our behavior even as we pursue more in-depth modes of coverage.

On a related topic, I’m getting a number of questions about our online op-ed and blogging initiatives. How, some people inside and outside Reuters are asking, can we purport to be independent and unbiased when we publish opinion columns and edgy online commentaries? In my view, the issue comes down to whether we are adding value for our readers: Are we helping them make smart decisions, achieve fresh insights, and influence the global conversation? We’re already doing this brilliantly through our own financial commentary service, Breakingviews. I believe that providing a forum for other intelligent commentary on a variety of topics also helps fulfill our mission, as long as we disclose clearly that the ideas presented reflect the views of the individual writers and not of Thomson Reuters. As an organization, we are abiding by the Trust Principles because we come to the process with no political or ideological agenda but rather with a straightforward commitment to the vigorous exchange of views in the public interest.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on any of these issues.

With best regards,

Steve Adler ■