Michael Williams
New Thomson Reuters CEO backs editorial hiring plans - Stephen Adler
Wednesday 07 December 2011
Thomson Reuters’ new chief executive James Smith supports Reuters’ editorial growth strategy, Stephen Adler, editor-in-chief, said and will not curtail his hiring spree.
“We’re full speed ahead,” Adler told The Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch website.
Some media analysts aren’t quite so sure, columnist Jon Friedman said. They suggest that Smith’s promotion as replacement for CEO Tom Glocer signifies the company’s desire to undercut Adler’s go-go spending ways. They believe that Thomson Reuters’ challenges will force Adler, appointed to the top editorial job in February, to curtail the big spending and eventually shrink the size of his staff.
Friedman said Adler couldn’t have sounded more confident that Smith, who takes over on 1 January, will continue to have “an extraordinary commitment” to Adler’s strategy of investing heavily to strengthen its commitment to enterprise reporting and to recruit journalists such as the WSJ’s Michael Williams and Bloomberg television executive Dan Colarusso.
“Adler said he, too, has heard the whispers from Thomson Reuters’ critics but declared: ‘This doesn’t change anything’,” Friedman wrote.
“What’s also not likely to change is the industry’s confusion about what Adler wants to accomplish,” Friedman wrote. “Does he want his operation to be true to its roots as a British-based wire service that reports doggedly on financial markets or a gleaming long-form journalism operation that wants to be known for its enterprise and investigative reporting? Can Adler make both sides co-exist?”
Adler has tried hard to change the culture of Reuters by wooing a plethora of non-wire-service journalists, Friedman said. “He is betting that he can maintain a strong position in the meat-and-potatoes work of covering the financial markets while making a name for Reuters in enterprise writing.
“In his first year, Adler and his team have succeeded in changing the company’s rather stodgy image. Now, they must find a way to continue the momentum at a time when the world at large expects him to rein in his growth plans.”
● SOURCE MarketWatch
“We’re full speed ahead,” Adler told The Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch website.
Some media analysts aren’t quite so sure, columnist Jon Friedman said. They suggest that Smith’s promotion as replacement for CEO Tom Glocer signifies the company’s desire to undercut Adler’s go-go spending ways. They believe that Thomson Reuters’ challenges will force Adler, appointed to the top editorial job in February, to curtail the big spending and eventually shrink the size of his staff.
Friedman said Adler couldn’t have sounded more confident that Smith, who takes over on 1 January, will continue to have “an extraordinary commitment” to Adler’s strategy of investing heavily to strengthen its commitment to enterprise reporting and to recruit journalists such as the WSJ’s Michael Williams and Bloomberg television executive Dan Colarusso.
“Adler said he, too, has heard the whispers from Thomson Reuters’ critics but declared: ‘This doesn’t change anything’,” Friedman wrote.
“What’s also not likely to change is the industry’s confusion about what Adler wants to accomplish,” Friedman wrote. “Does he want his operation to be true to its roots as a British-based wire service that reports doggedly on financial markets or a gleaming long-form journalism operation that wants to be known for its enterprise and investigative reporting? Can Adler make both sides co-exist?”
Adler has tried hard to change the culture of Reuters by wooing a plethora of non-wire-service journalists, Friedman said. “He is betting that he can maintain a strong position in the meat-and-potatoes work of covering the financial markets while making a name for Reuters in enterprise writing.
“In his first year, Adler and his team have succeeded in changing the company’s rather stodgy image. Now, they must find a way to continue the momentum at a time when the world at large expects him to rein in his growth plans.”
● SOURCE MarketWatch
Stephen Adler spells it out: stick to Reuters standards
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Five days after Reuters published an inflammatory report that alleged billionaire financier George Soros was behind the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, editor-in-chief Stephen Adler on Tuesday spelled out to staff the need to stick to the agency’s editorial 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
● SOURCE Reuters | The Newspaper Guild of New York
“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
● SOURCE Reuters | The Newspaper Guild of New York
Reuters aims to become best in the world – Stephen Adler
Friday 16 September 2011
“Indeed, to be fully effective as a global organisation, we have to be as influential and as well known in the US – the world’s largest economy – as we are elsewhere in the world,” editor-in-chief Stephen Adler, pictured, said in an interview published on Friday. “Our mandate at Reuters is to become the best journalism organisation in the world,” he said.
Reuters’ recent hiring spree, including a handful of Pulitzer Prize-winners, has quickly attracted the media world’s attention, the US news website and blog Huffington Post reported. At the same time, it said, Reuters has relaunched its ● website to better showcase its vast reporting in a more consumer-friendly way, stepped up social media efforts and increased analysis, opinion and enterprise reporting.
Reuters is not giving up on breaking financial news that paying subscribers want or reporting international wire stories that cash-strapped newspapers, lacking foreign budgets, increasingly need, The Huffington Post said. However, deputy editor-in-chief Paul Ingrassia says the company wants to go beyond breaking news. “I think what we’re making a bigger effort to do is not only be first with events,” Ingrassia said, “but very quickly and analytically ... report the meaning and impact of those events.”
By giving Adler a mandate to make big moves, Reuters may hope to avoid being lapped by the Bloomberg behemoth, the website said. When asked whether Bloomberg is Reuters’ main competitor, Adler rattled off the many subscription platforms that Reuters offers its users, including traders, investment bankers, lawyers, tax specialists and pharmaceutical researchers. Reuters, he said, also reaches one billion people a day through the agency business used by newspapers, magazines and websites.
“Our audience base is thus quite different from anyone else’s, as is our revenue model,” Adler said. “The better we are, the more our journalism is worth to all of our customers. And we aim to be the best. And, yes, Bloomberg is certainly a leading competitor.”
As part of Reuters’ hiring spree, The Huffington Post noted that last week alone the agency hired former Slate media critic Jack Shafer, Pulitzer-winning Wall Street Journal veteran editor Alix Freedman, and Bay Citizen editor-in-chief and Industry Standard founding editor Jonathan Weber.
The website said that a year ago, media watchers wouldn’t have imagined such a slew of hires coming back-to-back. But Adler – a former deputy managing editor at the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek editor-in-chief just before Bloomberg’s acquisition of the magazine – started making big moves shortly after becoming Reuters editor-in-chief earlier this year.
Adler’s new editorial leadership team was looking like the Wall Street Journal in exile, it said. Ingrassia spent over three decades at the Journal and Dow Jones, where he won a Pulitzer for his coverage of the auto industry and later ran Dow Jones Newswires. Three other former Journal staffers are on board, too: former chief operating officer Stuart Karle, data editor Reginald Chua, and enterprise editor Michael Williams.
“Adler’s leadership team isn’t all Journal ex-pats,” The Huffington Post said. Adler hired Jim Gaines, a former Time Inc. executive most recently at News International’s iPad application The Daily and Harold Evans joined as an editor-at-large. “And some members of the team are old Reuters hands. Chrystia Freeland, who joined Reuters last year, became editor of Thomson Reuters Digital. In May, James Ledbetter moved from ● Reuters.com to become Reuters inaugural op-ed editor…
“When my position was created, there became a much stronger mandate from above to go out and get big names and put the full weight of Reuters behind it,” Ledbetter said. Since he took over, Reuters has hired not only Shafer but two former New York Times reporters with Pulitzers on their resumés: David Rohde and David Cay Johnston. “It’s getting to be quite a stable,” Ledbetter said.
While recent buzz may help raise Reuters’ profile outside, The Huffington Post said there has been some grumbling inside the company. Staffers say there are concerns that too much emphasis is being placed on big-name outside hires at the expense of cultivating talent within. Managers also worry about holding onto their positions in the newsroom amid editorial reshuffling and executives' shifting priorities.”
Staffers say other management changes have gone over well, including an emphasis on getting out of the office more to build deeper source relationships and the dismantling of the long-running beat system that only rewarded stories impacting stock prices. One staffer said it seems clear management wants to build a news organisation that creates a lot more buzz and prestige.
Some staffers believe that management expects to win Pulitzers in the coming years, following Reuters’ greater investment in enterprise and investigative reporting.
Both Adler and Ingrassia, however, balk at any suggestion that there’s a Pulitzer mandate. “Prize-hunting, per se, is not the objective here,” Ingrassia said.
“As I’ve said to the staff, we want to do work that is so memorable and so distinguished that it is recognised by our peers,” Adler said. “Winning awards is one measure of excellence but not an end in itself. We also want people talking about our journalism, sharing it with each other, and using it to make smart decisions and achieve fresh insights.”
● SOURCE The Huffington Post
Reuters taps top WSJ editor for global role
Monday 02 May 2011
Editor-in-chief Stephen Adler, announcing the appointment to staff on Monday, described him as “a great conceptualiser, manager and editor of deeply insightful, agenda-setting stories” who “brings a truly global perspective that will resonate especially well with Reuters readers”.
Adler, who spent 16 years at the Journal, said Williams was a gifted teacher and mentor who would work closely with journalists throughout the organisation, across beats and regions, “to produce the meaningful, high-impact journalism that our customers require”.
He replaces Jim Impoco who becomes executive editor of Thomson Reuters Digital, a job that involves integrating online, mobile and digital properties with the wider news operation. Impoco is a former editor at The New York Times where he helped redesign and relaunch the Saturday and Sunday business editions. Previously he worked at Fortune magazine, Condé Nast’s Portfolio, The Associated Press, and U.S. News & World Report. He joined Reuters in September 2009.
Last month Adler, who became editor-in-chief in February, brought two top WSJ executives into Reuters – Stuart Karle, former general counsel, as chief operating officer, and Reginald Chua, former editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal as data editor.
● SOURCE Reuters
