A blogger's money is not good enough for Reuters
I applied for an account to pay to view all of Reuter's photo packages. I was rejected. Something about only dealing with businesses, not individuals. I think I was blackballed.
With the scandal raging over the Reuter's photograph (now two photographs, forcing Reuters to pull all of Adnan Hajj's photographs), I thought it would be good to see more Reuter's photos. To do that you have to apply for an account. I entered my data on the online application form. I had no idea what it would cost, but I figured I can always cancel the application.
I got my first response email, probably automated:
From: pictures@reuters.com
To: agwnblog@gmail.com
Date: Aug 6, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Reuters Registration ConfirmationDear Steve Janke,
Thank you for registering at www.pictures.reuters.com. You will receive an email when your account is validated.
To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.
OK, a bit odd. Validated? Usually that means just checking that the email isn't bogus. Obviously I got this email, so my email was good.
I liked the bit about views being expressed aren't those of Reuters...nice touch.
Then I got this email about fourteen hours later. No one called me or emailed me to ask me about my status as an individual or as a business. Someone just came to this conclusion:
From: pictures@reuters.com
To: agwnblog@gmail.com
Date: Aug 7, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Reuters Registration - Account Request RejectedDear Steve Janke,
Your registration for access to the Reuters Pictures service has been rejected. You are still welcome to browse some of our best image collections that are available from the Home Page.
This is a business to business service and we do not accept applications from private individuals. If you believe that you received this message in error please email pictures@reuters.com
To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.
Well, doesn't that just bite. First, what is the difference between a business and a private individual? Money is money, right? And why would my blog be discounted as a business? It has a logo and it's own URL and copyrights and T-Shirts and everything. They knew about the blog because I provided the URL for it in the application.
Unless...
Unless that's the problem. Reuters follows the URL, sees the critical stories, makes up some bit about "business to business" and closes the door in my face. I don't remember seeing anything about "business to business" during the application process, and I checked it again just now, and I still don't see anything.
In any case, Reuter's seems picky about who gets to see their pictures. Too bad they weren't more careful about who was taking them.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Reuters Adnan Hajj
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I would guess that they have received a few of those applications from daring bloggers in the last 48 hours, and they had to come up with a rejection "business to business" story on the fly.
Posted by: at August 7, 2006 12:48 PM
Reply back telling them that you *are* a business (unincorporated sole proprietorship). If CRA recognizes individuals as businesses in this way, there's no valid reason for anyone else to reject it.
Posted by: CERDIP at August 7, 2006 01:12 PM
Oh yeah, and then the fee will be tax deductible.
Posted by: CERDIP at August 7, 2006 01:13 PM
Seems pretty straight forward to me: Reuters is engaging in a little CYA defensive maneuvering. If they checked you out then they know that nothing good (for them) can come of letting you into the vault so the don't.
Although as someone who frequents your blog I greatly appreciate and sympathize with what you're attempting to do, if I put myself in Reuters' shoes it seems like stonewalling you is the obvious thing to do.
Posted by: Brad in Waterloo at August 7, 2006 01:25 PM
Good on ya' Steve. Keep at 'em and they'll eventually give in.
Looks to me like they have stuff to hide and really don't want their credibility damaged by examination of the biased coverage of the news.
Can't figure out why they support a group that would suspend accurate coverage of the news as soon as they could.
Strange Brew
Pat
Posted by: Pat at August 7, 2006 01:43 PM
Steve, if you are really interested in pursuing this further, I have two active Ontario corporations, one of which is ThisCanada.
Posted by: Erik Sorenson at August 7, 2006 01:52 PM
Do your logs show a visit from Reuters between the application and the rejection?
Posted by: Shaken at August 7, 2006 02:05 PM
Pay to register your blog as a business then apply again. I think it costs something like 60 bucks in Ontario. If that's too much money, maybe a bunch of bloggers can chip in 5-10 bucks each to apply as a business then apply to Reuters.
Posted by: SUZANNE at August 7, 2006 02:09 PM
Just a thought: maybe it's because you used a Gmail account as your email address. During the account activation stage, they seem to require a corporate email.
Also, Reuters is a news-gathering agency that supports media outlets, not some fine art photography co-op that sells pretty pictures to collectors. Based on their mandate and client base, and the fact that their account registration form is set up to record potential clients' (media-related) company information, I'm thinking that the 'business-to-business' criterion pre-dates this "scandal."
Posted by: A at August 7, 2006 02:41 PM
A, you might be correct about this policy pre-dating this fiasco, don't know, but when you go to the registration page it gives you an example of an email address which happens to be gmail. I don't think it being gmail is the problem, maybe just the business thing?
If nothing else comes from this at the very least every single picture being published in the news is now likely to be scrutinized to the extreme. I hope this promotes more honesty in what we are being fed on a daily basis.
Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at August 7, 2006 03:00 PM
Anne: the reason the example is a gmail account is because when I created the link from this blog to Reuters, that's what I typed in. 'testingtesting123@gmail.com' is mine, not Reuters. It could have easily been sometime else entirely.
I agree with your second paragraph though. Anything that encourages honesty in the news industry is a good thing in my book.
Posted by: A at August 7, 2006 03:57 PM
 
|
|
