Ethical question

[Killick]

That's a pretty weak standard, 'stang.

"No really, it didn't affect my reporting AT ALL."
"Yeah? Prove it."
"Uh..."

Best way to avoid the question of if it did or didn't is not to take the tickets.

 

[littlehurt98]

I see people all the time call it unethical to accept these gifts, yet no one ever seems to have a good explanation as to why, other than it's what they've been taught.

I notice no one has answered this question yet and I certainly don't have the answer. Your point about being taught it is wrong is very true, but the reason it is wrong is never explained.

If the magazine has already been published and circulated I don't have a problem with someone, even the writer, taking the tickets. The story is over with and what was written can't be changed at that point.

At my shop our D-1 college provides season tickets to all the sporting events. The publisher keeps them in his office and the entire staff is welcome to them on a first come, first serve basis. Most take advantage of this and sometimes tickets are given out at the yearly Christmas party. So if I get tickets this year, should I refuse them?

 

[RickStain]

Journalism ethics are designed to encourage the belief by the reader that we are neutral and credible. Accepting gifts gives the reader reason to believe that what we write is not free from bias. Even if the gift is given after the fact, the appearance of inpropriety is there.

That said, this is all just moralistic wanking, because readers don't really have faith in us to begin with.

 

[Killick]

I see people all the time call it unethical to accept these gifts, yet no one ever seems to have a good explanation as to why, other than it's what they've been taught.

I notice no one has answered this question yet and I certainly don't have the answer. Your point about being taught it is wrong is very true, but the reason it is wrong is never explained.

If the magazine has already been published and circulated I don't have a problem with someone, even the writer, taking the tickets. The story is over with and what was written can't be changed at that point.

At my shop our D-1 college provides season tickets to all the sporting events. The publisher keeps them in his office and the entire staff is welcome to them on a first come, first serve basis. Most take advantage of this and sometimes tickets are given out at the yearly Christmas party. So if I get tickets this year, should I refuse them?

First, yeah *this* article is done and in print already, can't be changed. But what about the next article? I mean, unless you're never going to write about the performer, venue or promoter again.

As for the D1 school tickets: In reality, if your shop sanctions it, you'd be nuts to turn them down. Now, should your shop be doing it is another question. I'd say no.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Journalism ethics are designed to encourage the belief by the reader that we are neutral and credible. Accepting gifts gives the reader reason to believe that what we write is not free from bias. Even if the gift is given after the fact, the appearance of inpropriety is there.

That said, this is all just moralistic wanking, because readers don't really have faith in us to begin with.

This is the essence of the issue. I once asked an editor friend, "What gives us the right to judge the people we cover?" He said, (half-joking, because he knew better), "We're morally superior." Well, accepting gifts from coverage subjects and sources, before the fact or after the fact, doesn't give off a "morally superior" perception. And perception, as we know, is reality.

 

[Stitch]

Journalism ethics are designed to encourage the belief by the reader that we are neutral and credible. Accepting gifts gives the reader reason to believe that what we write is not free from bias. Even if the gift is given after the fact, the appearance of inpropriety is there.

That said, this is all just moralistic wanking, because readers don't really have faith in us to begin with.

As for news, the right-wingers think every paper is a liberal rag, and vice-versa with the left-wing wackos.

 

[Gator]

Here's another wrinkle to the discussion: A relative of mine was recently diagnosed with cancer, and we're putting together a benefit on her behalf. My girlfriend really went out of her way with her employer to put together a little vacation package here ... I felt there was something I could do to pull my weight.

I called the baseball GM of our local team that we cover very well during the summer and asked him if he wouldn't mind donating some tickets to go with the package. He was delighted, and added that his mother died of cancer the year before.

I don't think he did this because he expects more coverage, and chances are, he won't get any more than he's gotten in the past 10 years. Technically, this is probably unethical, and if that's the case, fine. Call me unethical.

 

[Mediator]

Journalism ethics are designed to encourage the belief by the reader that we are neutral and credible. Accepting gifts gives the reader reason to believe that what we write is not free from bias. Even if the gift is given after the fact, the appearance of inpropriety is there.

That said, this is all just moralistic wanking, because readers don't really have faith in us to begin with.

As for news, the right-wingers think every paper is a liberal rag, and vice-versa with the left-wing wackos.

So just give up? If Tim Donaghy said the fact that he bet on NBA games he officiated didn't affect his calls, does that make it cool? The problem is that people lie to themselves to justify their actions all the time. "I'll go out, but I'll just have a beer and turn in early."

Potentially benefitting off a story that doesn't ruffle any feathers might just make you tell yourself you liked it a little more.

 

[SF_Express]

I'm fairly surprised at the lack of, "heck no, it's completely wrong to take tickets or anything else from people you're writing stories about."

That said, I'm not particularly disappointed.

It has always been a gray area. If you get tickets or whatever specifically because of something you wrote, to me, it's fairly straightforward that it's still wrong.

But years ago, I played golf in a pricey LPGA pro-am, not because of anything having to do with our coverage, but because our paper was a corporate sponsor. Still, when they handed out the free TVs, that made a bit uncomfortable, so I said no.

I am, however, a bit uneasy about something that's been repeated a couple of times on this thread: That everybody thinks we're unethical, so what difference does it make?

There have always been decisions to be made on such things, but they should be made case by case, not because we might as well do what people think we do anyway.

People think we're a vast liberal conspiracy -- so should be start conspiring to slant our coverage to the left? Obviously not.

 

[SF_Express]

I'm fairly surprised at the lack of, "heck no, it's completely wrong to take tickets or anything else from people you're writing stories about."

That said, I'm not particularly disappointed.

It has always been a gray area. If you get tickets or whatever specifically because of something you wrote, to me, it's fairly straightforward that it's still wrong.

But years ago, I played golf in a pricey LPGA pro-am, not because of anything having to do with our coverage, but because our paper was a corporate sponsor. Still, when they handed out the free TVs, that made a bit uncomfortable, so I said no.

I am, however, a bit uneasy about something that's been repeated a couple of times on this thread: That everybody thinks we're unethical, so what difference does it make?

There have always been decisions to be made on such things, but they should be made case by case, not because we might as well do what people think we do anyway.

People think we're a vast liberal conspiracy -- so should be start conspiring to slant our coverage to the left? Obviously not.

 

[Joe Williams]

These tales remind me of one from my first job. Small town, two of its movers 'n' shakers in sports world were the proprietors of feuding bowling alleys. Each tried to woo the daily rag's bowling writer -- I got handed that beat when I walked in the door, as did each new person to the small staff -- with free lines of bowling, comped shoe rentals, pitches for story ideas, etc.

Best part came when I showed up one day to do some sort of story and the boss man at that lanes presented me with a new ball, personalized with my name. He had noticed which ball I used from the rack while bowling one day and had finger holes cut to match.

It was all pretty ridiculous and I put my fresh-outta-J-school ethical foot down until he noted correctly that the ball was drilled and engraved ("Joe") and therefore wouldn't be of use to anyone else. Still have the ball around somewhere these many years later. Not sure the fingers fit.

Didn't alter my coverage, though if the other guy knew about it (Proprietor A easily could have gloated to him), he'd be right to suspect favoritism from that point. Fortunately someone got hired a few weeks later and I handed off the beat.

 

[expendable]

Hmmmm...What if said tickets were to a Bruce Springsteen concert? ;D

I keed. I keed.