Conflict of interest at APSE?

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with spnited.

I don't even enter anything into APSE. Obviously, I'm not losing very much.

 

1. I don't know any of these people.

2. If the guy is/was such a great journalist and editor, he should instantly recognize the conflict of interest. I don't understand why he didn't immediately step down from judging. I can't imagine even pretending that its ok for someone who works for the company I cover to judge me. Huh?

3. Your opinion of the awards or Jenks is irrelevant in this issue. It's all about the conflict of interest.

 

The conflict of interest plays a linchpin role in my disdain for these awards.

 

Sorry, Billy T. I don't do the blue font. Wasn't meant to be taken literally.

 

The "But Jim Jenks is a really good guy" argument is pretty weak.

What about the next guy or gal who isn't as nice? Or as ethical?

 

© 2001-2008 MLB Advanced Media, L.P. All rights reserved.

MLB.com appears to be a subsidiary of MLB, making it somewhat separate. Since I don't know the inner workings, it could be just as divided (I doubt it) from the teams as Liberty, Tribune, McClatchy and NY Times are from theirs. Those folks still judge and are active members of APSE (well, not Liberty).
Convergence is a big term in our industry when it comes to print and Web, but look at the St. Pete Times Forum and all of the advertising done by newspapers (and media in general) at sporting venues. We should strive to be ethical every step of the way. But the general public perceives the media as being in bed with these teams to some degree. And we are, even if it is not at the reporter/editor level.
Jim Jenks is an APSE member according to some very old rules. But it dosen't look like he works directly for MLB. Barring him could eliminate many more (print) folks from being members. Changes and/or clarifications are necessary, but must be thought out.

 

making a living is fine. no prob. but when you work for the people you cover, it ain't journalism anymore. that's all i'm saying. it's the dark side -- even if it's the sunny side of the income street.

and to whoever argued jenks isn't really working for mlb, gimme a break. it's called "mlb.com." in essence, the paychecks are signed by bud selig.

again, nothing wrong with that. but damn straight jenks should no longer be an apse judge. this isn't personal, sonny. strictly business.

 

Have to agree with Diego here. How far do we take this. Jenks is in a financial relationship with a team or entity we cover. There are few stadiums and arenas that don't have the local paper plastered somewhere in it.

I've seen newspaper logos and full-bodied pictures of columnists as advertisements in gameday programs. Newspapers buy or even print signs that have, "Go Podunk U!!!" on one side and the Podunk Press masthead on the otherside.

Since a lot of this talk is about perception, what perception do those financial relationships give?

To call out Jenks and not call out every other APSE member, in a financial relationship with an entity we cover, is putting degrees on what's supposed to be unethical behavior. Take/give a dollar to/from that entity or do the same with $200,000 it's all the same. Either it's all wrong or it's all cool, and we figure out away to deal with what's allowable.

In the world of perception, it doesn't matter how the money gets exchanged. It's still a financial relationship.

 

Unfortunately, this is 100 percent true.

 

In theory, advertising and editorial are separated. That's kind of a long-standing, accepted tenet of the business.

And, for the record, I've always thought the Tribune ownership of the Cubs was unethical.

If it was up to me, we wouldn't advertise at stadiums or in game programs. It's something that indicates that news-side, at least subconsciously, thinks, "Hell, it's just sports!" But it's out of our hands, for the most part.

But this situation is completely in our hands and no one else's. APSE needs to make a stand indicating that we take our news-gathering role seriously, and to hell with what anybody in advertising, city desk, biz, features or anywhere else thinks of us.

 

It's monumentally different.
Of course, it's a problem for the reporters who work for the NYTCo, McClatchy, and the rest. Ask them if they don't hear about it every time they write something that somebody doesn't like. But the NYTCo., for example, is a diverse corporate entity the primary business of which is communications. MLB, Inc. is a singular corporate entity whose sole product is baseball. MLB.com exists to promote that product. Period. Again, to all the people arguing the other side of this, if your beat guy wanted to write for the corporate promotional side of the team he covers, what would your answer be?
You can't define this problem away.

 

No to re-jack this thread back to its original topic, but...

When will the first results be announced?