Planet Abell

Reuters waded into the waters of opinion and analysis against a very strong tide: An iron-clad policy of doing nothing that could conceivably open the 150-year-old news agency to the charge it was not absolutely free from bias. In the not-yet three years since Reuters columnists began taking sides on stories Reuters reporters were covering, a breakthrough I called " Reuters Opinion 1.0 ," its global reporting power has only grown. But Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer seemed to complicate the question of institutional ambivalence with a post on his personal blog in which he inveighed against a "rush to judgment" concerning financial giant Goldman Sachs and a civil complaint by the SEC which accuses the Wall Street behemoth of fraud. Glocer states an obvious fact: Goldman is guilty of nothing until the company is found guilty of something, or agrees that it broke a rule or regulation. But now comes an object lesson into why this may not have been the best...

R euters appears to be on the verge of merging with Thomson, a deal that would create a financial news and information powerhouse to rival Bloomberg by reducing the field to two major players. It should also enhance the profile of Reuters editorial, which for all the time I was part of it looked over its shoulder to protect itself not so much from external threats but powerful insiders who questioned its relevance far too often for comfort. The proposed deal as outlined by Reuters CEO Tom Glocer would be a bit complicated; the companies would tie up as a "Dual Listed Company" with two identical boards, and each would remain separately listed on exchanges. The company would be called "Thomson-Reuters" but the combined news gathering and publication divisions would be called "Reuters." The Trust Principles and the Reuters Founders Share Company , which aim to ensure editorial independence, would be retained. Glocer said he would become the CEO of the merge...