“Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.” –Steve Adler, Reuters editor-in-chief, writing in the company’s internal blog.
The headlines that came from that paragraph were a tad more over-the-top: “Reuters orders reporters to cover Trump like an authoritarian regime”–RawStory. “Reuters Will Cover Trump The Way It Does Authoritarian Govs”–Daily Caller. “Reuters told their reporters to cover Donald Trump like a dictator”–Indy100.
The actual post is a touch less melodramatic, but it is a shift away from “access journalism,” which relies on using government sources, especially anonymously, to learn the “inside baseball” version of the story, which Adler says no one cares about anyway.
What he is describing here in my opinion is just good journalism. An editor could write this about any government; hell, he could write it about his own office.
Also, the White House is in disarray as would any new admin, especially one that didn’t expect to win. (I wonder if Truman’s WH was like this when Dewey was projected to win.) I keep thinking the press corps has to be careful about single-source, anonymous leaks. They offer, most likely, a distorted view that fits the reporters’ narratives rather than accurately representing what is happening inside 1600 Penn.