In Soros storm, Reuters failed to follow safeguards or fix mistake

We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. At Reuters, as a matter of policy and the Trust Principles, we correct errors quickly, openly, completely.

At least, that’s the policy as it applies to Guild journalists at Reuters. So far, it does not appear to apply to managers who assigned, wrote, edited and transmitted a story that has rocketed around the media world, and not in a good way.

The story on Thursday, initially headlined, “Who’s behind the Wall Street protests?” was long on innuendo and short on evidence but suggested, through some extremely tenuous connections, that billionaire George Soros was behind the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. It was an unjustified conclusion to say the least. A later story, headlined, “Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests,” changed the focus. (Both stories had been removed from the Web by midday on Friday, but a New York Observer account of the incident includes a screengrab of the original.)

The story based its conclusion that Occupy Wall Street protestors “benefited indirectly” from the Soros fortune on records of donations – the most recent of which was made two years ago – that Soros made to a group, which in turn had been making donations to Adbusters, the Canadian group that helped launch the Wall Street protests:

“According to disclosure documents from 2007-2009, Soros’ Open Society gave grants of $3.5 million to the Tides Center, a San Francisco-based group that acts almost like a clearing house for other donors, directing their contributions to liberal non-profit groups. Among others the Tides Center has partnered with are the Ford Foundation and the Gates Foundation.

“Disclosure documents also show Tides, which declined comment, gave Adbusters grants of $185,000 from 2001-2010, including nearly $26,000 between 2007-2009.”

Here’s how Reuters blogger Felix Salmon saw the Reuters story’s logic in his review of the incident:

“The fact that Soros gave money to Tides and that Tides gave money to Adbusters in no way means that there’s an “indirect financial link” between the two. That’s like saying that there’s an “indirect financial link” between me and Mitt Romney, because I lend money to Citigroup (I’m a depositor at Citibank), and Citigroup has given money to Romney.”

So far, there has been no clear correction or official withdrawal of the story with an explanation to readers, as would be standard procedure. 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. A small sample of online criticisms includes New York Magazine, Slate and the Atlantic Wire.

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. 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. (A call to Freedman on Friday was not immediately returned.) For hours, both the original and the revised stories were online, with no explanation; another editor blamed this on a “technical glitch.”

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.

There are two things Guild members should keep in mind: 

-- Guild journalists at Thomson Reuters have an absolute, contract-guaranteed right to remove their names from stories of which they do not approve. The company can transmit the story over the author’s objections, but it cannot force a union journalist to put his or her name on the story.

-- When a story goes awry – and remember, anyone can make a mistake – Guild journalists have a right to union representation if the error prompts any kind of investigation or discipline. If you are in doubt, contact your steward, Guild Unit Chair Debby Zabarenko, Grievance Chair Dan Grebler or Guild Representative Susan DeCarava.

It’s not the Guild’s responsibility to offer suggestions to management, but in this case our members’ collective reputations are hanging in the balance too. We feel sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the best way to recover from this gaffe is to come clean, explain how the error happened and pledge that everything will be done to keep it from happening again. Using the procedures already in place would be a good start.