CNN drops Reuters TV

August 31, 2007

Every time an agency con­tract comes up for review at a news organ­iz­a­tion, there will always be someone say­ing: “Couldn’t we just do without [insert name of agency here]?” Gen­er­ally, it is what’s known as a nego­ti­at­ing tac­tic. This time it’s Tony Mad­dox of CNN Inter­na­tional, and the agency is Reu­ters, and appar­ently he means busi­ness.

There are very good reas­ons not to rely on agen­cies. Oper­a­tion­ally, it forces your news­gath­er­ing to be more self-reliant, but the real bonus is com­mer­cial — you own what you shoot. And there are very good reas­ons to rely on them — they have dif­fer­ent and com­ple­ment­ary strengths, they can be in places you can’t ever be.

Still dis­en­tangling your­self from a rela­tion­ship like this is a major logist­ical head­ache. I’m sure Reu­ters (and CNN teams)will be keep­ing tabs on all those times CNN don’t have access to the key pic­tures or the cru­cial angle. But will the audi­ence notice?

Per­son­ally, I’d be more con­vinced of the com­mer­cial argu­ment if Mad­dox put num­bers on the invest­ment CNN is mak­ing in its news­gath­er­ing. If it’s more than it was pay­ing Reu­ters that’s an invest­ment. If not, that squeez­ing sound is the belt being tightened.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: