"Not allowed" to use the term?
So Reuters obeys the Elysée palace?
Just like Agence France Presse...
Just like every other news medium.
However, when it comes to such interference, postponement of release of an item, or simple direct archiving without release, a grrrrreat distinction is made between media from Countries We Don't Like and Countries We Like. In the first case, such deeds are called "censorship"; in the second, it is called "news management".
It is a matter of playing ball: either you do each other little favours or you risk receiving official press releases a few minutes later than other wire services. In extreme cases, accreditation is withdrawn and you simply stop getting invited to government press conferences. After all, nobody
has to invite you.
When you're running a wire service, you give your journalists copies of the "timings".
These are slips of paper that list who got a given on the wire first, second, third and so on. If your folks are systematically getting notified only a few minutes after the competition, customers give you a reputation for being slow.
I don't know what's happened since Thomson bought up Reuters, but in the 1990s, if any piece of major economic and financial news hit the wire elsewhere, market prices would only start moving once Reuters had confirmed it.
That said, AFP long had superior overall coverage of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Reuters was best for Europe and sharp for the USA. US wire services were great for the USA.