Bjorn Edlund
Jean Espinassy
Thursday 19 May 2011
It took Bernd Debusmann a matter of hours to solve the mystery of the Lebanon correspondent who used to call on Lt Col Jean Espinassy, the French chairman of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission (ILMAC) in Beirut in the late 1970s. Gavin Bell is the name Jean has been searching for all these years. Thanks to Bjorn Edlund and Paul Holmes who also came up with the answer. Now, of course, after telling me tales of his encounters with Gavin – “I think he thought I had some state secrets to leak to him” – Jean wants to know what happened to him. I gather he’s living somewhere in Scotland. Is anyone in touch with him? Jean and his wife Annie clearly have very fond memories of Gavin and I’d love to be able to put them back in touch. Jean is an interesting man who served in Berlin, Indochina, and the Sahara as well as with the UN in Lebanon. In Berlin, as a young captain, Jean tells me he was very popular with the Americans. “I had the only heated jeep and I also had camembert.” On his wall is a framed certificate attesting to the fact that he had a share in the Nobel Peace Prize won by the UN Peacekeeping Forces in 1988. “I got the certificate, he (the UN Secretary General) got the money,” he says.
Terry Williams
Gavin Bell’s contact details are listed in The Baron Directory – Editor.
Terry Williams
Gavin Bell’s contact details are listed in The Baron Directory – Editor.
Tips for running a successful news agency
Wednesday 12 January 2011
David Schlesinger's ● Tips for running a successful news agency are a really good leadership philosophy. I've worked for 11 CEOs in the three companies where I was head of PR, and only the very best where able to articulate how they saw their jobs. This makes me want to know more, under each heading. How, for example, would David outline the standards and ethics he sees as vital?
Bjorn Edlund
Bjorn Edlund
Facts and comment
Wednesday 27 October 2010
Bjorn [Edlund] refers to my days at UPI in the 70s and even then we wrote clearly flagged commentary and analysis pieces (never did write for Reuters), so this is nothing new. And of course journalists have their own opinions and try as we might to be objective every story is really subjective – what you choose as the main subject of the lead, for instance. But my main point is that agencies have to understand it doesn't matter what flagging you do on stories to show they are commentary and not news; at the end of the day one reader is going to say to someone "Reuters says" and the differentiating between commentary and news is gone. The company may think it has done all it can to divide hard news from commentary with all of the flagging etc, but the real bottom line is that it all gets translated out there as "Reuters says..." If that's ok for the brand then fine, but if not ...
Phil Stone
Phil Stone
Facts and comment
Monday 25 October 2010
I agree more with John Abell. My beef is not with commentary or any new-fangled interaction with news users, but watering down the craft of journalism. Reporting is a profession. And as with any lawyer, chartered accountant or doctor worth consulting, reading my news I'd like to know I'm getting a professional product elaborated with due care in accordance with established best practice. If on top of the news file there are news analyses and personal columns, great. Clearly flagged as analysis and commentary. But Breakingviews is, as far as I can see, merely market froth whipped to momentary steady state, a souffle of rumours with deal-making as the egg white. It reeks of mentality of investment bankers, who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Fine, as long as this is clearly flagged. Reporters have had opinions as long as doctors, lawyers and chartered accountants have. But, just like these professionals, they learn to use their professional tools and the skills of their craft to achieve outcomes that pass muster, whatever their views or the views of their "users" – because the thing they have in common is a shared understanding of news as a fair account of what has occurred.
Bjorn Edlund
Bjorn Edlund
Facts and comment
Friday 22 October 2010
Phil Stone, who as UPI bureau chief in the Nordics hired me in 1977 for my first real job in journalism, takes up a key issue [● Do we want commentary from our news agencies?]. In its extension, news becomes of no value if it is not processed using strict quality criteria – without integrity, even facts are suspect. As Google and other aggregators already devalue good reporting and news itself, I think forgetting the basics would do indelible harm to Reuters. Hats off for dealing with the offending columnist swiftly. And hats off to David Schlesinger for trying to keep Reuters ahead of the game – including interaction in chat rooms. But my question for David would be, what is value if not the integrity of your business, news?
Bjorn Edlund
Bjorn Edlund
Future news network
Tuesday 16 March 2010
I see Zaid Rashdan’s point, but I'm not convinced. Here's why. Organisations should focus on what they're good at, and get good at other stuff they need to do to stay healthy and get even better at what they are good at. But there is a fine line. If organisations stray too far from their core they spread themselves thin, and often wither. Since the 1970s Reuters has built its non-news business on the back of its stellar journalistic reputation. But as a company, Reuters (or better its executives since the era of its stock market introduction) failed to realise that news gathering was the real strength – and that the new gizmos and transaction technologies and the deal-oriented info that flowed on these systems were a corollary, and not the strategic core – or unique selling proposition (USP), as management theory calls it. And after Reuters became a listed company, it has seemingly consistently failed to develop a strong strategy. A near-monopoly in the trading rooms, it was like a turtle on its back when Bloomberg showed up as competition in the non-news arena. Now follow the social networks. I can't see it helping much. I could see Thomson Reuters as a strong independent player, and thus indispensable partner to the companies building the social media world – but only if it doesn't dilute its offering: news content which is reported, edited and produced to the highest standards. Because that is becoming a real rarity.
Bjorn Edlund
Bjorn Edlund
Future news network
Sunday 14 March 2010
Project Apollo [● Reuters media chief outlines vision for future news network] sounds desperate, like so much talk about media these days. Content is just something to talk about in the new world, but unless content is generated, there is nothing to talk about. And the world's formerly greatest news agency needs, in my view, to find better ways to fight for the value of the news/content it produces. How content is tagged and clouded and shared many-to-many on social media platforms hardly seems like something Reuters should focus on. The agency went astray a long time ago, when it thought technology was its core rather than content.
Bjorn Edlund
Bjorn Edlund
