Reuters: does it matter?
It may have appeared to some readers of the Spectator that we have been devoting too much space to the subject of Reuters news agency. It is widely thought — and not without reason — that if there is agree- ment among the company's shareholders to cash in on its extraordinary prosperity by selling most of their shares on the stock market, it is nobody's business to stop them. Does it matter, anyway, if they do sell? The present owners of Reuters, who are the newspaper proprietors of Britain, Australia and New Zealand have no wish, we must assume, to harm the news agency. On the contrary, they and the company's management have repeatedly committed themselves to upholding the principles of the agency's trust agreement by which they are pledged that Reuters 'shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest group or faction' and to preserve its `integrity, independence and freedom from bias'. Finally, what is so important about Reuters anyway? Would it really matter all that much if, in the end, these promises were not kept?
This last question is worth asking because, as Reuters does not provide any direct service to the public at large, few peo- ple have any clear idea about what it does and are therefore ill-equipped to assess the importance of its role. They may, if they read the 'quality' press, know it as a name attached to some news stories from abroad, but that is about all. If the integrity of the BBC, for example, faced any sort of threat, there would be an outcry all over the world. But few would realise the extent to which the BBC's famous news service relies, without independent verification, on infor- mation provided by Reuters.
Reuters is one of only four genuinely in- ternational news agencies — agencies, that is, which undertake to report news from, and supply news to every country in the world. The other three are the Soviet News Agency Tass, Agence France Presse and the Associated Press of the United States. Tass is a Soviet propaganda organisation which nobody looks to for the truth. Agence France Presse, while it has many virtues, re- mains basically a French national news agency which draws a large subsidy from the French Government. Only the Associated Press and Reuters can boast total independence of government in- fluence. Both of them — the Associated Press since the last century and Reuters since 1941 — are co-operatives owned by their customers, the press. It is a form of ownership of which both, until recently,
have been extremely proud.
In this respect Reuters and the Associated Press are twins, but in other ways they dif- fer. The Associated Press is cooperatively owned by some 1,400 rich American newspapers. The newspapers of Britain, Australia and New Zealand are fewer and poorer. Reuter:, has therefore always been obliged to find other sources of income to support its news service. It has traditionally done so by selling financial information. In recent years it has done so with stunning success. The previously struggling company is now highly profitable and valued at some £1,000 million. To the owners of Reuters, in particular to the beleaguered press barons of Fleet Street, the prospect of easy money has presented an irresistible temptation. They have decided to sell most of their shares on the stock exchanges of London and New York.
The flotation plan contains safeguards intended to ensure that control of Reuters remains with its present owners in the same proportions as before. A new board of 13 trustees, including three grandees from out- side the newspaper industry, will have a `master share' enabling them to veto any at- tempted takeover. The present owners, after selling most of their shares to the public, will be left with a special class of shares giving them voting control. They will not be allowed to dispose of these shares for three years, and thereafter they may only offer them for sale, at first, to each other. This plan will be presented to the world as foolproof and consistent with the principles of the old Reuters trust agreement, which will have to be jettisoned. Should we accept such claims?
No. If the owners of Reuters have their way, the character of the company is bound to change. Its principal purpose will no longer be to supply the world's most reliable news service, but to make money for its shareholders. As the ordinary news service can never, by its nature, be a major source of profit, the shareholders are likely to be more interested in the company's money-making activities. The agency's reputation could also be threatened. Many Third World countries, as their antics at UNESCO confirm, are profoundly suspicious of the western 'cultural im- perialism' exemplified by their reliance on western news agencies. Reuters may con- tinue to trumpet its integrity, but if its shareholders are seen to include ugly-faced capitalists or political pressure groups, it will be denigrated and circumscribed.
And why, finally, should we trust the assurances of Reuters' shareholders who have discarded as worthless a trust agree- ment which until recently they were praising as sacred?
Parliament, which debated the ownership of Reuters in 1941, is doing so again this week. Pressure should be put on the present trustees, who are to meet shortly, to take their responsibilities seriously. The least they should be required to do is to submit the flotation plan to the Lord Chief Justice who, under the existing trust agreement, has to approve any changes in the owner- ship arrangements.
Previous page
