Reuters Is Not Above Reproach (II)
According to the Reuters blog that tracks and responds to reader reactions to mistakes, none of its 2,500 reporters have made a mistake that’s been called too its attention in the last 6 days.
Wow, that’s all I can say.
I know I’ve made a mistake or two in the last 6 days… on this blog alone- but then again I don’t work for Reuters where the standards are so high. Where the company’s “shared values” and “standards” are upheld as it assumes “a leadership role among information companies.”
I must say I am surprised that an entity like Reuters would so blatantly and selectively ignore concerns about its own reporting.
Let me relay to you a little story about a Reuters competitor called the Associated Press (AP). The AP is far from mistake-free and has had a few doozies in its time but recently I contacted them about some questionable reporting that I found on MSNBC.com that was attributed to the Associated Press. After emailing and speaking with the appropriate regional editors they were able to determine that the questionable story was not theirs and they insisted that MSNBC.com remove it from the site. It only took about two hours for them to research the story. Contact the news outlet. And have it pulled.
Reuters? Well… as of this posting… it’s been 216 hours. Tic, tic, tic, tic…
Here’s our latest letter to Reuters:
October 22, 2008
Dear Mr. Goller,
As you know I have written to you after attempting to contact Robert Doherty- Washington Bureau chief, Marguerita Choy- listed as the editor of the article in question and Maggie Fox- Reuters Science Editor. I still have not received an answer from any of these Reuters editors and have also not received so much as an acknowledgment from anyone in your organization that our concerns are being investigated or addressed.
With Reuters journalism standards in mind we ask again that you please review the article titled Alaska pollock fishery near collapse: Greenpeace published by your organization on Friday October 10th.
Thank you for taking the time to review these concerns. It is our sincere hope that they will be addressed soon.
National Fisheries Institute