Is Canzano being unethical?

Canzano's blog item saying he was promised complete autonomy was interesting, and it's probably true. But it doesn't matter at all.

This is clearly a conflict, and the first time he goes easy on the Blazers on anything -- even if that's his sincere, unvarnished, uncoerced opinion -- people are going to say it's because he's on the payroll.

In fact, I see a reverse problem with all this: Him bending over backwards to ATTACK the Blazers, even if it might not be his real, thought-out opinion, to prove he's not being pro-Blazers because he's on the payroll. That might be a more dangerous problem than the other.

In either case, a bad deal.

 

The guy on KNBR who got criticized for ripping the Giants --- Dave Krueger (sp?) --- was fired because he used racist terms (or at least insulting terms) to describe Felipe Alou and other Hispanics.

It's incredible that the Oregonian would let Canzano pull this stunt. One of the Oregonian's top editors, Peter Bhatia, is very sensitive to this kind of issue and very sports-oriented.

I agree with posters above who say that this will be reversed.

 

Are you guys saying that all radio appearances for any writer is a conflict of interest? If that's the case, I might disagree with you on that one. But if not, well, that's why I'm asking.

 

They are a conflict if you are getting paid a salary by the team you cover.

Nothing wrong in general with going on the radio..........

 

I'm rather encouraged by the unanimity on this thread. Good to see that some standards haven't been rationalized away by claims of "synergy" or "crossover marketing" or "changing times." Textbook, indeed.

 

If a new station solves this for Canzano and the Oregonian by hiring him to do a show where Paul Allen doesn't pay the bills, the next question should be: How many of the on-air or prep hours will be coming off his Oregonian time card? How many scribes with the two full-time jobs and two full-time salaries actually work two full-time shifts? Corners get cut and the newspaper starts to get (harsh word, I know) cheated. And they lay there and take it, the pathetic cuckolds.

 

Oh, cause you'd turn down $80k to preserve your integrity?

 

I'd either take the radio job or keep the newspaper job. Not both. Is that so hard to believe?

 

Joe, you lose me here.

Columnist isn't a 40-hourly job. I he continues to produce his columns, with the same quality, and does radio, too, I have no particular problem with that. And, in fact, the promotion the paper receives IS of value.

Just have a problem with the second employer, that's all.

 

Get that money, Cananzo ... who care's who's signing the check as long as you are doing your job ... Paul Allen owns probably 1,000 busineses

 

Columnist isn't 40-hour job? My experience has been, the best columnists work as hard and often as long as their section's beat writers. And that's usually the best situation for a staff with good morale.
As for "same quality," well, that's hard to judge. A guy who might spend 30 extra minutes polishing his column vs. guy who hits the Send key and heads to studio? We'll never know if the second guy could have done better, I guess.
And for every reader who says, hey, I heard that guy's opinion on the air, I want to read him, it's possible there is someone who says, hey, I heard that guy's opinion on the air, I don't have to read him and can save my quarter.
But we can agree to disagree. Makes the world go round.

BTW, so much for unanimity here on the ethics part.

 

i don't understand how the many red flags were missed (ignored) while this arrangement was being made.

on a side note, didn't dwight jaynes bail out of the oregonian for a radio gig in 2000ish?