John Fullerton
Contacts with British intelligence
Thursday 15 December 2011
With reference to Charles Oppenheim’s letter [● Derek Jameson’s recollections] in which he says Special Branch acted in effect as an intermediary in efforts by Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) to cultivate correspondents, I would like to add that while Reuters was a trust company it was, as far I know, very much off-limits to British intelligence.
The same went for the FT (and that may well still be the case). Probably it all changed when Reuters went public with its first share offering in 1984. I had had contacts with SIS officers over the years prior to my Reuters employment and when in 1983 I told an SIS officer I was thinking of joining Reuters (in Hong Kong), he told me that if I did so, SIS and I would not be able to continue to have conversations. I said that if it was so important to him, he could always offer me a career in the service. His response was as diplomatic as it was accurate. The matter had been discussed, he said, but it was felt that I “would chafe under the bureaucratic restrictions of a peacetime service”.
It wasn’t until the end of the 1980s that an SIS officer made himself known to me as such and we had a chat about matters of common interest.
I knew about the FT because I was once interviewed – successfully – for the role of stringer in south Asia by a very self-important personage at the newspaper’s London offices. The paper did not recruit spies, he said, and it did not allow its own correspondents to become involved in intelligence work and he wanted an assurance that I was not an agent of some kind.
The notion of Special Branch coppers acting as matchmaker seems implausible; it would widen the circle of people conscious of SIS interest in specific correspondents, leading to just such a revelation as Mr Oppenheim’s letter. It would surely make for better security if SIS officers working under diplomatic cover were to use their own discretion in deciding whether to approach people of interest. But what do I know? As the man said, I’d only chafe under such rules.
John Fullerton
nbnbn
The same went for the FT (and that may well still be the case). Probably it all changed when Reuters went public with its first share offering in 1984. I had had contacts with SIS officers over the years prior to my Reuters employment and when in 1983 I told an SIS officer I was thinking of joining Reuters (in Hong Kong), he told me that if I did so, SIS and I would not be able to continue to have conversations. I said that if it was so important to him, he could always offer me a career in the service. His response was as diplomatic as it was accurate. The matter had been discussed, he said, but it was felt that I “would chafe under the bureaucratic restrictions of a peacetime service”.
It wasn’t until the end of the 1980s that an SIS officer made himself known to me as such and we had a chat about matters of common interest.
I knew about the FT because I was once interviewed – successfully – for the role of stringer in south Asia by a very self-important personage at the newspaper’s London offices. The paper did not recruit spies, he said, and it did not allow its own correspondents to become involved in intelligence work and he wanted an assurance that I was not an agent of some kind.
The notion of Special Branch coppers acting as matchmaker seems implausible; it would widen the circle of people conscious of SIS interest in specific correspondents, leading to just such a revelation as Mr Oppenheim’s letter. It would surely make for better security if SIS officers working under diplomatic cover were to use their own discretion in deciding whether to approach people of interest. But what do I know? As the man said, I’d only chafe under such rules.
John Fullerton
nbnbn
Spiked story
Thursday 23 June 2011
I don’t think the cables “revolutionise” anything [● Paper publishes story Reuters spiked]. They give credence to “facts”, such as they are purported to be, which are not new and have been circulating for years in Thailand’s samazdat-like rumour mill. As presented in the story Reuters spiked, they are very much old hat. I suspect every tuk-tuk driver, bellboy, bar girl, university pundit, newspaper columnist and pavement stallholder would regard it as general knowledge. Is that really worth quitting over? It’s yesterday’s fish ’n’ chips wrapping. I sympathise with Andrew [Marshall], but who hasn’t been there before? It’s not the first story Reuters has quashed, and one or two instances come to mind which were arguably of far greater significance. We’ve all thrown our teddies in the corner over some similar outrage or other – as they say in Arabic, the dogs bark, the caravan moves on. Reuters would have precious few bureaux or correspondents left in Asia and the Middle East if correspondents were to jump ship every time what passes for editorial management sat on a story. Why this was spiked, of course, isn’t clear. Perhaps it does indeed have something to do with Thomson Reuters’ substantial presence in Thailand as a “regional hub”.
As for Andrew, perhaps he was planning to go anyway and simply chose his moment well.
John Fullerton
vbnbnbn
As for Andrew, perhaps he was planning to go anyway and simply chose his moment well.
John Fullerton
vbnbnbn
David Fox and Andrew Marshall
Friday 13 May 2011
While the winning of awards [● Tehran bureau chief Parisa Hafezi wins top award for media women] and the appointment of WSJ journos to the team [● Reuters taps top WSJ editor for global role] are of interest, what happened to mail – for example from former correspondents like John Fullerton [● David Fox] – and the news on the David Fox/Andrew Marshall saga [● Reuters fires bureau chief over crude remark ● Reuters editor punished for chat room remark]?
The whole incident, costing an experienced correspondent his job and giving a black mark to another, indicates another side to the evolution of the company – retrograde in my view. Alarmingly too, it suggests that either I cannot find my way any longer around The Baron, or that the site is subject to either pressure or sabotage.
John Baggaley
No pressure, no sabotage. The five most recent news headlines are displayed on the Home page and mail is deleted from that page after a while in the interest of keeping it current. Everything ever filed to The Baron, including all news and all mail, remains on the site and accessible. Older news items and mail are archived each calendar month. To find any item use ● SEARCH in the main menu or ● A-Z Index or ● Site Map in the navigation sub-menu – Editor.
The whole incident, costing an experienced correspondent his job and giving a black mark to another, indicates another side to the evolution of the company – retrograde in my view. Alarmingly too, it suggests that either I cannot find my way any longer around The Baron, or that the site is subject to either pressure or sabotage.
John Baggaley
No pressure, no sabotage. The five most recent news headlines are displayed on the Home page and mail is deleted from that page after a while in the interest of keeping it current. Everything ever filed to The Baron, including all news and all mail, remains on the site and accessible. Older news items and mail are archived each calendar month. To find any item use ● SEARCH in the main menu or ● A-Z Index or ● Site Map in the navigation sub-menu – Editor.
David Fox
Saturday 16 April 2011
Presumably The Baron will get to the bottom of this [● Reuters fires bureau chief over crude remark] and tell us what the hell is going on. Journalism was always a rough trade, and many of us have inured ourselves and our feelings with crude and brutal humour from time to time. Soldiers do it all the time. It's not tasteful, nice or respectful. But then working in dangerous places isn't nice, either.
John Fullerton
John Fullerton
Richard Williams
Wednesday 02 March 2011
The news of Richard Williams’ death – at just 56 – came as a huge shock. As the ’68 song went, “it seems the good, they die young”. It is deeply, deeply sad.
I worked with Richard in the NUJ. His loyalty and commitment to Reuters chapel members was deep and heartfelt. He never worried about the impact on his career of standing up for the chapel and the rights of members – no matter how tough that was.
But he was not just deeply principled, he was fun. He had the hard bitten humour that came with working at Reuters, forged by both the reality of what we reported on and the frequent crassness of the way people were treated.
John Fullerton has asked why so many Reuters people do not seem to live to enjoy what should be an exciting period after the Baron. There are no statistics to back this up, and some people have gone on to rich and fulfilling afterlives. But I agree with John that there do seem to be too many early losses. Maybe we need to do more ourselves. I hadn’t seen Richard for years. I now wish I had.
Richard was someone who was truly of Reuters, not just with Reuters. He will be missed.
Paul Mylrea
I worked with Richard in the NUJ. His loyalty and commitment to Reuters chapel members was deep and heartfelt. He never worried about the impact on his career of standing up for the chapel and the rights of members – no matter how tough that was.
But he was not just deeply principled, he was fun. He had the hard bitten humour that came with working at Reuters, forged by both the reality of what we reported on and the frequent crassness of the way people were treated.
John Fullerton has asked why so many Reuters people do not seem to live to enjoy what should be an exciting period after the Baron. There are no statistics to back this up, and some people have gone on to rich and fulfilling afterlives. But I agree with John that there do seem to be too many early losses. Maybe we need to do more ourselves. I hadn’t seen Richard for years. I now wish I had.
Richard was someone who was truly of Reuters, not just with Reuters. He will be missed.
Paul Mylrea
Richard Williams
Tuesday 01 March 2011
I was shocked and saddened to read of the death of Richard Williams. We were colleagues on the World Desk for the best part of a decade, and although we were never really friends, I respected and liked him for the man he was: unpretentious, intelligent, rightly sceptical of all authority, a team player of quiet yet strongly held convictions, professional and slow to anger – whereas, of course, I was never a team player (unless it was my team), always liked a good scrap, had a hair trigger temper and suffered fools (of which Reuters London has always seemed to have had more than its fair share) not at all gladly. What was particularly striking in this case was Richard's age – only 56 – and the fact that he’d only just “retired” (ghastly, misleading term) the previous year.
Why do so many Reuters people not live to enjoy what is, or should be, an exciting, exhilarating period? Has anyone studied this phenomenon and, if so, what can be done to stem these early losses? This is a time to shed institutional identities and grow old disgracefully – to do all those things we’ve always wanted to do, to replenish ourselves, to live to the utmost.
That Richard could not do so is a matter of great regret.
John Fullerton
Why do so many Reuters people not live to enjoy what is, or should be, an exciting, exhilarating period? Has anyone studied this phenomenon and, if so, what can be done to stem these early losses? This is a time to shed institutional identities and grow old disgracefully – to do all those things we’ve always wanted to do, to replenish ourselves, to live to the utmost.
That Richard could not do so is a matter of great regret.
John Fullerton
