CNN to stop using Reuters news service

[Robbien]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The CNN cable television news network said on Thursday it would stop using the Reuters news service, ending a 27-year relationship, to contain costs and invest in its own news gathering operations.

The global television news network owned by the world's largest media company, Time Warner Inc (TWX.N: Quote, Profile , Research), said in an internal memo that it wanted to reduce reliance on agency material while achieving better control of its growth.

"This is all about us, not Reuters. This is about content ownership," CNN spokesman Nigel Pritchard said. "Everything is changing and content ownership is king."

. . .

"To advantage CNN in the content marketplace and manage the continually rising costs associated with acquired assets, we are making significant investments in our own news gathering while simultaneously reducing our reliance on agency material," Tony Maddox, executive vice president of CNN International, said in a memo dated August 29.

CNN, which said it planned a multi-million dollar investment in its news operation, will continue to use news provided by the Associated Press and Associated Press Television News, which competes with Reuters.

Read more: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2007-08-30T170242Z_01_N30424380_RTRUKOC_0_US-CNN-REUTERS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23&sp=true

---

While no fan of Reuters, I believe Associated Press is the most right wing news service around.

[AndyA]

1. Associated Press is real big on using 'Democrat Party' (sic) in their stories.

Which, of course, get repeated verbatim all over the world.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Well, I can at least tell you that any reporter that writes that usage is wrong, according to the AP

The AP uses "Democratic Party," not "Democrat Party" as a matter of course.

[AndyA]

16. I've seen more than one reference in recent history that was wrong, then.

And they were not corrected.

[SteppingRazor]

20. Be that as it may...

I've got The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual sitting at my desk right next to me, and under the "D" heading it has an entry that reads "democrat, democratic, Democratic Party."

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that when it does happen, it's not supposed to. :)

[Judi Lynn]

19. You bet they are. Decided to do a quick search, found this instantly:

In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name.
(snip)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005

From:
GOP strategists christen "Democrat {sic} Party" -- and the media comply

[SteveM]

27. Have you ever heard a "Democrat" leader object to the term? Neither have I.

[Robbien]

29. Yeah, what's up with that? Luntz has publically stated it is a deliberate slur

that he recommended all GOPer/press use. DC Dems say "wha??? Well that is okay then."

[Judi Lynn]

30. I heard a Democratic leader mention it not long ago in answer to a question in an interview on TV.

You have to be almost completely hostile to Democrats or simply profoundly stupid to think using bad grammar when appropriate terms have been used from the very beginning is acceptable.

Deliberately hostile to Democrats, or simply too dumb to live?

[moondust]

32. Pelosi should be throwing them off the floor of the House.

Used as an adjective "democrat" is indisputably a pejorative and should not be tolerated.

[TankLV]

45. You can shove your head back up your ass now...

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. "Reduce reliance on agency material..."

"... which consistently refuses to toe the line laid down by the Ministry of Truth."

:eyes:

[Dulcinea]

24. CNN probably just doesn't want to pay Reuters.

It's all about the bottom line, no more, no less. The only ideology the broadcast & cable networks care about is what'll boost their stock prices.

[niyad]

3. I haven't paid any attention to collaborative network ninnies in years, see that I am certainly not

missing anything

[frazzled]

4. "reducing our reliance on agency material"

Otherwise stated: "we can just make it up ourselves."

[bbgrunt]

35. ..or, we don't need no stinkin' news--just more of glen pecker and larry

[bahrbearian]

5. Fox News is so much Cheaper , in every respect.

[stillcool]

7. exactly...

why pay for news you never use?

[Tight_rope]

34. BIngo!

[SteppingRazor]

6. Provided CNN does, in fact, expand its own news-gathering, this is a good thing.

Less reliance on the wires means more voices in the media, and more voices is always good. ... well, except for Fox :P

[endarkenment]

12. Why would they do that?

They appear to be following the fox model of just making shit up.
That is a real cost saver.

[SteppingRazor]

14. Hey, I'm just sayin' if they actually do wat they say they're going to do...

it's a good thing. I'm not saying they are, in fact, going to do it.

[IsItJustMe]

9. Don't watch any of the corporate media anymore. Ever since they said Iraq had WMD, I pretty well

figured out what is going on in this country.

[harun]

26. Congratulations, me too !! (n/t)

[AlCzervik]

10. Reuters has some excellent camera people, many of whom were killed

in Iraq.

[jobycom]

11. That Reuters article is a nice piece of work,.

Lots of digs in an article that almost reads like a neutral story. :thumbsup:

[Robbien]

15. I also noticed that.

More than most US outlets, Reuters does seem try to keep politics out. It doesn't succeed most of the time, but it does try more than the others.

[MetaTrope]

13. "reduce reliance on growth while achieving better control of its agency material"

is more like it.

[Robbien]

17. Maximizing shareholder profit and not offending powers that be

They should just come out and say it

[acmavm]

18. Who cares? CNN is crap anyway. Unless you want to know the latest

about Brittney (sp?) or the latest spin out of cheney's mouth.

Real news? Forget about it.

[Maestro]

21. Crap News Network to get crappier.

Meh. Who cares? I haven't visited CNN.com in years and haven't watched CNN since 2003. Reuters is pretty good for keeping things more unbiased than most.

[EFerrari]

23. It's crap not news.

:)

[Maestro]

38. Point taken.

:thumbsup:

[Cha]

39. That's undoubtedly why crapnotnews

is dropping Reuters first. I stopped watching Nov 6, 2002.

[xchrom]

22. ok like the conservative news network is going to give a

facual basis to the news they report -- yeah when pigs fly with icecubes through hell.

[Beausoleil]

25. So they can "verb" more nouns?

"To advantage CNN in the content marketplace"

[peace13]

28. CNN=FOX

They don't need Reuters articles because they don't need a factual account of anything. What they need to report is already in the script. Peace, KIm

[ozymandius]

31. FELONY STUPID

Why in the bloody hell would they jettison the ONE news organization that provides information gathering service in the parts of the world where they have NONE (South America and Africa) before they have their own news gathering apparatus built?

It's about numbers. Not prestige. People who think otherwise should do the fucking math.

[Tight_rope]

33. "invest in its own news gathering operations"....ohhh! ohhh!.

That means showing news that the owners of CNN want them to show. CNN no more a reliable source. Wait!...They stop being a reliable source back in 2000. Never mind.

[bbgrunt]

36. no, they will just rely on the government produced propaganda.

[Oeditpus Rex]

37. Uhhhh... what??

"(T)o contain costs and invest in its own news gathering operations" is a self-cancelling concept. Nobody dumps the wires to put the money into their own reporting. One wire service does the work of an entire newsroom, and adding to the news budget is a thing of the past.

This is about increasing their profit margin, nothing more.

[arikara]

40. Why invest in actual reporting

when they can just pass off free press releases from the government and corporations as reporting? Look forward to lots more "Health Watch" infomercials produced by the pharmaceutical companies.

It really doesn't matter, CNN wasn't worth the time even before they dumped Reuters. Have they ever said a word about all the leftist political candidates and their families being murdered in Guatemala? Or done a report on the million plus Iraqi civilians who've been slaughtered since the invasion? How about effect of the navy's sonar on whales? Or an in depth of the disappearance of the honeybees? How about some unbiased reporting on the absurd scheme to push gardasil vaccinations on young boys... in case they should have oral sex and then perhaps develop throat cancer as a result. Whoops! They'll probably report that one and pass it off as a good idea because its bought and paid for.

AGGGH!!!

[Canuckistanian]

41. So, they're switching to McClatchy?

:rofl:

I kill me.

[Peace Patriot]

42. Oh, natch! They're going to rely on AP! Jeebus.

Well, once we have restored our right to vote, by

THROWING DIEBOLD AND ES&S AND ALL ELECTION THEFT MACHINES INTO 'BOSTON HARBOR'!.....

...our no. 1 priority must be dismantling these fucking fascist war profiteering corporate news monopolies, pulling their corporate charters and seizing their assets for the public good. They have NO RIGHTS when it comes to use of our public airwaves. None! All they have is money and power. And this country has a long history of trust-busting and the creation of REAL markets. This has nothing to do with "free speech." In fact, busting up CNN and the other 4 rightwing billionaire CEO news monopolies would greatly ENHANCE free speech. Send 'em packing!

Then we open our public airwaves to small, creative, competititive, diverse broadcasters, who represent a much, much wider political spectrum, and greatly limit their monopolistic growth.

Then we move on to the oil conglomerates and the "military industrial complex."

[siri2k]

43. Reuters is (generally) not rightwing; hence, CNN has no use for them.

n/t

[TankLV]

44. invest in its own news gathering operations

that should be good for a laugh...

Ted Turner come back! We need you!!!