The first story that was discovered to have been altered was by Reuters Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge. The original story said:
“The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian president was toppled in Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution and Russia annexed Crimea, with Russian-backed separatist forces fighting Ukraine’s armed forces.”
But when republished on RNZ.co.nz, that passage adopted a more Kremlin-friendly framing.
“The conflict in Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian elected government was toppled during Ukraine’s violent Maidan colour revolution. Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum, as the new pro-Western government suppressed ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, sending in its armed forces to the Donbas.”
RNZ’s 4pm news bulletin on Friday said the version published by RNZ “included a false account of events” and RNZ is investigating how the story was “changed to reflect a pro-Russian view”.
RNZ corrected the story online, adding a footnote that says RNZ is “taking the issue extremely seriously”.
RNZ’s Mediawatch understands a member of RNZ’s digital team is the subject of the RNZ investigation.
Late on Friday RNZ said an investigation is underway into “the alleged conduct of one employee” who has been “placed on leave while we look into these matters”.
“We are auditing other articles to check whether there are further problems,” the company said.
RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson said the inappropriate editing of the stories to reflect a pro-Moscow perspective was deeply concerning and would be addressed accordingly.
Other stories in the spotlight
Another RNZ.co.nz story on the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam described the 2014 Maidan Revolution as a “coup” - pro-Russian language which doesn’t appear in the original Reuters text.
The stories repeat false claims that Russia’s annexation of Crimea happened after a referendum on the move. The invasion was underway before the vote was held.
“Colour revolution” is sometimes used to describe protest movements backed by foreign powers with the intention of regime change.
Describing the 2014 revolution in those terms or as a “coup” aligns with the official Russian perspectives, but contradicts the Ukrainian view.
The assertion that ethnic Russian citizens were suppressed by the Ukrainian government has also been used by Russia to justify the invasion of Ukraine, but there’s scant evidence for the claim. The BBC’s Kyiv correspondent called it “demonstrably false” in 2014.
An RNZ News footnote now says the story was “edited inappropriately and has been corrected” and “we are investigating”.
Other Reuters stories on rnz.co.nz with similar editorial alterations are coming to light online.
Outside sources
Reuters is aware of the issue but has not responded to a request for comment.
An online user in the US who noted “Russian propaganda . . . on the Reuters wire today under the byline of its Moscow bureau chief” said a Reuters representative told them language appearing RNZ’s site “was not written by Reuters or Guy Faulconbridge”.
Reuters’ website terms and conditions warns: “You may not remove, alter, forward, scrape, frame, in-line link, copy, sell, distribute, retransmit, create derivative works . . . without our prior written consent.”
Mediawatch also asked RNZ if it is permitted to alter copy supplied by Reuters.
“There will be no comment until that investigation is completed and any appropriate action taken,” RNZ replied.
International news agencies such as Reuters supply news on a commercial basis to clients.
The terms of agreements with media organisations vary, but commonly allow media customers to edit text for length and to permit the addition of relevant details specific to the territory in question.
Passages of text can usually be included or added to stories published by client media companies, but significant editorial changes are generally not permitted where the published story is attributed to the agency.
RNZ’s editorial policy contains a section on material from “external sources” but doesn’t specify news agency suppliers.
“Staff may not ‘lift’ material from other news organisations with which we have no supply contract without independently authenticating the information before use,” it says.
“We should be aware of the dangers involved, particularly if the material is controversial.”
RNZ’s editorial policies also say audiences “should not be able to detect a presenter or journalist’s personal views”.
“Staff will have opinions of their own, but they must not yield to bias or prejudice. To be professional is not to be without opinions, but to be aware of those opinions and make allowances for them, so that reporting is judicious and fair.”
- with RNZ
