Every once in a while I get a note asking why I use the credit “(Reuter)” instead of “(Reuters)”.
The answer: because that’s the way the Reuters wire service slugged the datelines on their stories. But now, they’ve changed their mind: the dateline now says “(Reuters)”, so I’ve changed the credit lines to show this new usage from here out.
True’s online archive will be updated with that usage, even the pre-1997 stories. Eventually, as they’re reprinted, the book collections will show that usage too.
I actually think it’s about freaking time they fixed that!
I think this wasn’t the best possible decision… Obviously, if new stories are tagged with (Reuters) then that’s what you ought to use. But if the old stories were tagged with (Reuter) when you originally read them, then that’s what you should continue to use on your old stories. That WAS the name at the time.
—
Except, as indicated, I thought it was dumb to use “Reuter” in the first place, since that wasn’t the company’s name. They first incorporated in 1865 as “Reuter’s Telegram Company” specifically to carry news stories. (Before that, it was a private outfit using telegraphs and carrier pigeons(!) to transmit stock market information between London and Paris.) It was renamed to Reuters Ltd. in 1916, dropping the apostrophe.
This year the company merged with Thompson Newspapers (known for The Scotsman and the London Times) — but they’re still known as “Thompson Reuters” — with the S. They finally realized that it was foolish to be stubborn and stick with the singular, and I’m not about to continue the foolishness by ignoring it. -rc