Seb said: “Does Reuters expect SL to become some kind of “superblog” where Adam can get additional information – and will this be a reliable source?” Who knows?? — THREAD COPIED FROM BLOG@REUTERS: Reuters takes stake in Pluck – moving fast into the world of blogs… by david.schlesinger@reuters.com on 14 November 2006 @09:01 UTC Last week I wrote [weblogs.ime.reuters.com] about integrating blogs and news; now Reuters announced it is taking a stake in Pluck the company that makes this kind of integration possible (our story attached at the end). As journalists we have to be very aware of how our profession is changing how our industry is evolving. I think it’s really important for Reuters to be making a statement like this and buying entry into the tools and the ethos of the new information world. We are in the midst of a swirl of new things — user generated content (i.e. people publishing their own “news” and feature photos on Flikr [www.flickr.com] or on the bbc [news.bbc.co.uk] and soon I hope on Reuters.com) blogs being aggregated with news blogs competing with news and on and on. The industry we’re in just isn’t the same as it was; we need to embrace the changes. What do we hold on to? Our standards our professionalism our expertise our ability to connect the dots and present a whole picture based on facts and free from bias — that’s what will always separate our professional work from the rest. In the story attached below there’s a quote from Chris Ahearn head of the Media business that a number of you have asked me about: “Our general view is that news is news” Ahearn said. Whether generated by professional journalists or by blog commentators “we don’t take the view there is only one view you can trust and that we have it” he said. Chris can speak for himself but this is my view: I believe that professionals bring something tremendously important to a story – I think we make it a story in fact. We sift fact; we provide perspective and context and balance; we bring the weight of our standards and judgment and expertise to make our story a whole solid reliable piece of work. Blogs and nonprofessionals do something else – they bring a point of view; they bring their own expertise; they bring the non-journalists’ perspective (something that can be valuable) I see a place for both. I think it is wrong to start trying to put value judgments on one over the other. They both have to compete in the marketplace of ideas both for attention and for money. The more we do to make our news indispensable and our professional touch valuable the more we will win in that marketplace. I know that Chris respects and values editorial – his division pays for a lot of what we do after all! I think what he’s trying to get at is that in the future we have to accept that our readers and customers will have a much more open and eclectic view of how to approach a story and we need to be ready for that. Reuters will always have and will always need to have a strong professional news force. We will need other kinds of information around our core too. And we have to figure out how to fit one with the other successfully. 06:52 14Nov06 -Reuters takes stake in Pluck to syndicate blogs By Eric Auchard SAN FRANCISCO Nov 13 (Reuters) – News and information company Reuters Group Plc has taken a stake in Web media syndication site Pluck Corp. and agreed to distribute blogs worldwide as part of its new media strategy. Reuters has invested $7 million in the Austin Texas-based company in return for an undisclosed ownership stake Pluck Co-founder and Chief Executive Dave Panos said. Pluck operates the world’s biggest blog syndication network called BlogBurst which connects newspapers and other media sites to 2800 selected blogs helping traditional media supplement their journalism with blog viewpoints. Web logs or blogs have become a major source of commentary and reader feedback on the Internet. Traditional media have increasingly turned to blogs for insight and analysis. As a provider of syndicated text pictures and video news Reuters plans to offer Pluck’s BlogBurst blog syndication service to thousands of its media customers worldwide the London-based company said. BlogBurst counts U.S. news outlets such as The Washington Post the Gannett newspaper chain the San Francisco Chronicle and the Austin American-Statesman as its customers. In Britain it also links bloggers to the Guardian newspaper site and Reuters sites. Blog categories covered include news politics sports health fitness technology travel food and entertainment. Pluck plans to take advantage of Reuters’ investment to expand its services worldwide starting in Europe and later in Asia executives of both companies said. “What this deal provides is an edited and moderated view of what is happening in the world of blogs” said Chris Ahearn president of Reuters Media division. Beyond acting as a blog distributor Pluck offers SiteLife a set of Web services for media publishers and broadcasters to add interactive features to their own sites. SiteLife allows customers such as Fox News and the Meredith magazine and Hearst newspaper chains to incorporate reader contributions alongside stories produced by the publisher’s own journalists. Feedback features include photo and video contributions reader comments and allowing site visitors to create their own blogs under the publisher’s brand. The alliance with Pluck is one of a growing number of projects Reuters has in so-called social media. Others include a partnership with international blog commentary network Global Voices and financial backing it provides NewAssignment.net an experiment in new types of enterprise reporting Ahearn said. Reuters a decade ago pushed into the online news business by providing Yahoo Inc. and other then emerging Internet media sites with news feeds. “Our general view is that news is news” Ahearn said. Whether generated by professional journalists or by blog commentators “we don’t take the view there is only one view you can trust and that we have it” he said. Pluck had previously received $10 million from backers including venture capital firms Austin Ventures and Mayfield Fund Panos said. ((Editing by Jack Reerink. eric.auchard@reuters.com +1 415 677 3919)) Keywords: MEDIA REUTERS BLOGS Tuesday 14 November 2006 06:52:44 RTRS {C} ENDS [+] Tags: content editorial media social_software technology user_participation [-] Tags: content editorial media social_software technology user_participation ——————————————————————————– Email sent to Chris Ahearn by daniel.simpson@reuters.com on 14 November 2006 @12:57 UTC Hi Chris I’ve just read your comments about news (quoted in yesterday’s story by Eric Auchard and reprinted on the Reuters internal blog). “Our general view is that news is news” Ahearn said. Whether generated by professional journalists or by blog commentators “we don’t take the view there is only one view you can trust and that we have it” he said. http://weblogs.ime.reuters.com/infoblog/default.aspx?c=t&entry_id=26758 You appear to be suggesting that news and views are one and the same. Please clarify your views on Reuters news preferably in an open communication to all editorial staff. Thanks and best regards Daniel Simpson — Re: Reuters takes stake in Pluck – moving fast into the world of blogs… by chris.ahearn@reuters.com on 14 November 2006 @13:31 UTC Hi – My comments have gotten under some people’s skin. For this I apologize and hopefully a little context will help. For the record I work here because of what we do in editorial. If I did not think that we were committed to being the best and most respected News organization in the world – I couldn’t wake up in the morning to come to work. That is my personal committment to what we do – I take it that seriously. Some of you may view this comment as pandering those of you who know me know that is what I believe and feel. The principal mission of your media division is to make Reuters the digital news and information choice for our audience. That’s it our business is only as good and robust as the quality of what editorial does. My comment to Eric should be viewed in the context of what we are doing with Pluck and blogs in general. We are seeking to invite others into our environments to expand the quality and quantity of information we can provide to our audiences. Further we are seeking (over time) to give a plurality of views and voices – however we are not doing this as a free-for-all. We are doing it in a way which allows you (our editors) to moderate both the presentation and the discussion. This allows all of us to amalgamate views and commentary from a variety of sources. A specific business example is that I think it will be important for us to be able to aggregate parse and deliver what is published on corporate blogs in the future as they may become a principal way that press release type information is “distributed”. My specific comment “we don’t take the view there is only one view you can trust and that we have it” – isn’t unqualified support of all “blog” information. For me to say so (or believe so) would be boneheaded and stupid. However we all know that we cannot be everywhere and know everything and that news is news – whether we are the publishing source or someone else is. Let me be clear though – I am not equating views commentary and opinion with News – they are absolutely different things – but they are information items that in whole our audiences find valuable. What I meant was that I believe a great strength of our editorial team and tradition is to be able to highlight valuable information and news that others have – that we think is quality – and let our audience know about it. I don’t believe that we should do that in a totally automated way – I believe that is the role of a community editor. In fact for those of you who were watching the US Mid-Term Election coverage that Dean Wright and Emily Church spearheaded – you would have seen that they highlighted and linked out to other news providers who they found to have quality and interesting stories. If I have still caused offense – let’s continue the discussion – I know that I have no monopoly on the truth – help me help all of us find the best path. Chris — Reply to Chris Ahearn by daniel.simpson@reuters.com on 14 November 2006 @14:52 UTC Hi Chris Thanks for responding. You write: “The principal mission of your media division is to make Reuters the digital news and information choice for our audience. That’s it our business is only as good and robust as the quality of what editorial does.” The “quality of what editorial does” depends on the quality of its raw materials: sourced facts and quotations whatever the distribution system. Moreover the Reuters Trust principles already demand “a plurality of views and voices” across the news file even if the moderation of their presentation makes it impossible for bias to be banished completely. You say you’re “not equating views commentary and opinion with News” stressing “they are absolutely different things – but they are information items that in whole our audiences find valuable.” That may be so – and “content” may be king – but your comment to Eric Auchard didn’t imply as you suggest “unqualified support of all ‘blog’ information”; instead you appeared to be questioning whether “you can trust” Reuters news. Incidentally I see no problem in principle with reuters.com linking to “valuable information and news that others have – that we think is quality”. But if it’s news and we think it’s quality we should surely be trying to stand it up and report it ourselves. Best Daniel — Re: Reuters takes stake in Pluck – moving fast into the world of blogs… by chris.ahearn@reuters.com on 14 November 2006 @15:06 UTC Daniel You write “you appeared to be questioning whether “you can trust” Reuters news” – I think that is reading far too much into a comment that says there are many voices that can be trusted. Obviously I believe you can trust Reuters – otherwise I wouldn’t be in our business. BUT – I don’t believe we have a monopoly on trust – and nor should we. You also write “if it’s news and we think it’s quality we should surely be trying to stand it up and report it ourselves” – I completely agree. BUT – if there are others we trust who are reporting something do we need to do it also or should we focus our efforts on reporting something unique? I am not assuming you don’t believe this – I just find it to always be a good challenge to ask the question Thanks for pushing me to be clear. Chris — Re: Reuters takes stake in Pluck – moving fast into the world of blogs… by daniel.simpson@reuters.com on 14 November 2006 @15:45 UTC Thanks again for responding Chris. Whether or not you think I’m “reading far too much into (your) comment” it invited that interpretation. You now say you “don’t believe we have a monopoly on trust” reinforcing the impression that you were using the word “view” as a synonym for reporting. Nevertheless as you note there are other sources people trust. But I’d be interested to hear a news editor’s response to your question: “if there are others we trust who are reporting something do we need to do it also or should we focus our efforts on reporting something unique?” With regard to editorial standards here is the relevant section from the Reuters Handbook: “The fact that we are quoting someone else

I had my Second Life epiphany moment a couple of weeks back when I realised the power of a virtual parallel world. I sat down with an SL consultant who has his office in SL complete with news ticker…from the BBC 🙁 … and the way he explained it to me it came across as a huge collaborative R&D lab where people and companies can go try out new things with other forward thinking folk of the same mindset with common vested interests. We toured both Amsterdam and Dublin walking down virtual streets and going into virtual bars…great for tourism promotion and getting a feel for the place before you get there. SL is being used by these cities to showcase their “product” using the power of technology to offer people a better understanding of what they’re about and to test out new ideas..what if?… So what’s different for Reuters? beyond having a journo covering stories we can create a vision of how we see things working in the future. We could have a virtual financial centre and virtual products supported by virtual business models. I was once told by the CFO of Tussaud’s that they used a version of a video game my kids have called “Roller Coaster tycoon” to optimise the design and modelling of their theme parks. This is same thing except in a global environment where you can invite customers suppliers shareholders the public whoever you want to come work with you on projects. You can develop simulations in SL to illustrate how your great idea might work and invite people to take part and experience what their role might feel like so that you can anticipate issues early and deal with them. I see SL as a form of information visualisation; a multi-dimensional topography for research and decision-making. The great aspect for me is that makes things so accessible and understandable to even a casual visitor and it is collaborative… The challenge we face today is the pace at which things develop and multiple layers of collaboration required to deliver a service or product. If your product is virtual like information the number of moving parts and relationships is endless and constantly changing and the pace of change is quickening. For me SL seems to offer an organic environment in which to conduct a form of R&D in line with the nature of our business. Clearly if your business is stress-testing aircraft wings for metal fatigue it may not supply everything you require but for Reuters business I’m struggling to think of an angle where it’s not relevant.