In presentations about the Thomson takeover, Reuters’ global reach in news coverage was billed as one of its greatest strengths. It seemed as if top managers understood the importance of putting reporters where the news is. But now it seems Thomson Reuters managers no longer view geographic location and the development of local sources as all that important. We’re seeing a worrisome trend toward letting Bangalore staff try to do in-depth coverage of U.S. news – and asking U.S. staff to help them.

When management set up the Bangalore newsroom, they emphasized that there were limits to what it would do. Initially, Editor-In-Chief David Schlesinger promised that Bangalore reporters would handle only “commoditized news,” like earnings tables and minor press releases from smaller U.S. companies, freeing U.S. reporters to do more added-value work, like breaking news and writing analyses.

It’s been a slippery slope. At first, Bangalore simply reported earnings of companies that U.S. equities reporters normally did not cover. Then they added other news and earnings of all U.S. companies. Now it appears Schlesinger has instructed them to do executive interviews, analyses and features on companies more than 8,000 miles away from them.

In recent weeks, managers have asked U.S. journalists to supply sources and research for Bangalore. A Bangalore reporter writing a piece on the U.S. shoe business asked a New York staffer to visit a local shoe store to get comments for the story! There have been other similar requests.

Schlesinger may never admit it, but asking U.S. reporters to provide Bangalore with comments and personally cultivated sources shows that location still matters in journalism. It would make more sense for Bangalore staffers to cover the growing Indian economy than to do enterprise reporting on U.S. companies and industries for which they have to rely on U.S. staffers for background, sources and comment.

Pat Fitzgibbons, an editor-in-charge for equities, recently wrote a memo urging his staff to “help out (Bangalore) when we can,” adding that “all of us were once coached along by editors or senior reporters when we started our careers or started a new beat.” Coaching is one thing, but it’s ridiculous to help Bangalore reporters try to cover U.S. news from the other side of the planet.

The issue is simply that journalism – good journalism, the kind that Thomson paid $17 billion for – cannot be done remotely. Covering the United States from Bangalore makes as much journalistic sense as covering India from the United States. Reuters has always prided itself on having reporters in bureaus around the world.

When a rival news organization used Baghdad datelines even though it had no staff there, Reuters rightly objected. Now, management is hypocritically trying to pass off reporting about the United States that is done from abroad, usually without a dateline.

This is not a knock on our Bangalore colleagues, whom the company pays as little as one-sixth of what Guild-covered journalists earn. We’re just pointing out – as we have in the past – that remote-control journalism does not work.

Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer, in a recent discussion with staff in the Times Square newsroom, agreed to discuss the issue of foreign-based reporting of U.S. news with Schlesinger. Glocer said he would not tolerate coverage that brings down the quality of the news file. We hope Glocer is sincere and that he and Schlesinger will monitor the situation closely to guard against Thomson Reuters losing credibility with our clients.

In the meantime, U.S. reporters should continue to cultivate – and protect – sources, as management has long encouraged them to do. But if our members’ sources are suddenly inundated with calls from unfamiliar Thomson Reuters reporters, it could damage those relationships and give our competition the advantage.

Surely U.S. reporters are too busy covering their beats and cultivating new sources to take time to “mentor” reporters trying to cover their beats long-distance. But if managers order U.S.-based reporters to provide local legwork for Bangalore’s coverage of U.S. news, Guild members should withhold their reporting credits from such folly. (Journalists have the right to withhold their bylines under our contract - Article XXI, Section 4).

It’s official. Management says there will be no job cuts, either voluntary or forced, among Guild-covered Editorial staffers, at least for now, as a result of Thomson’s acquisition of Reuters. But other Thomson Reuters colleagues were not so fortunate.

Buyouts, apparently unrelated to the merger, have been offered to Technicians and TV Camerapersons. Management has said there will be layoffs if at least eight Technicians and two Washington Camerapersons do not volunteer for the buyouts.

Management is offering each group two separate buyout options. One option is to accept severance of two weeks per year plus 19 weeks, as the contract provides, in which case volunteers will be placed on a three-year rehiring list. The other option is to accept a package of enhanced severance and extended medical coverage, in which case volunteers will not be on a rehiring list and must waive any legal claims against the company. TV staffers have until June 20 to reply to the buyout offer and Techs have until July 18.

In addition, some U.S. Editorial employees of Thomson Financial News have been told that their jobs will be gone by September. The bulk of the 140 Editorial job cuts for Thomson Reuters worldwide will take place in Europe, with many likely to be in London.

Members of Britain’s National Union of Journalists at the former Thomson and Reuters (Thomson Editorial workers are unionized in Britain) approved two resolutions about this at recent meetings. They’re copied here:

“This chapel is prepared to take industrial action in the event the company tries to impose compulsory redundancies and instructs its officers to move ahead with a strike ballot if the company imposes timelines for redundancies without consultation.”

“This chapel has no confidence in editorial strategy as currently explained by management and believes this will lead to a deterioration in quality. It demands that David Schlesinger talk urgently to both chapels jointly.”