Is Canzano being unethical?

Just to expand this a bit: The sports staff of the Philadelphia Daily News does a 90-minute show five days a week on Comcast Sportsnet. Everyone on the staff appears and everyone is paid by the appearance. The show amounts to a raise of a few hundred dollars a week.
Comcast Sportsnet in Philadelphia is a division of Comcast-Spectacor, which owns the Philadelphia Flyers and the Philadelphia 76ers. Sportsnet is also the Phillies' primary TV outlet.
Is this better or worse than Canzano's obvious and flagrant breach? If the whole staff is getting paid, does that spread the offense out or is it compounded by the fact that everyone is compromised?
Sixers and Flyers executives routinely appear on the show as in-studio guests and are sometimes quoted in the next day's Daily News as having "told Daily News Live." When the NHL lockout was going on, the show frequently featured Comcast-Spectacor chairman Ed Snider and Flyers GM Bob Clarke but never anyone from the NHLPA.
I bring this up because, while I agree it's worth discussing the Canzano situation, no one seems remotely aware or interested in the Daily News situation.

 

You don't see any irony in your last line?

 

Not to go off topic, not that ever happens around here, but the parking lot deal was interesting. The guy was a Pulitzer Prize winner and was parking in a lot owned by a source for free. But the guy who owned the lot, it was free parking for everyone.
The Oregonian suspended the guy without pay for two weeks and took him off his beat.
It seems that to me that Oregonian took one of the strongest measures available to them as punishment.
Back on point, if your paper wants to do cross-promotion, in some markets doing that without any possible conflicts is impossible.
Without knowing all the details, it sounds like Oregonian was committed to doing that and after getting assurances that Canzano would have complete editorial control, they OKed the radio deal.
While I can partially understand some of the outrage, I just don't think it is realistic in today's media world.

 

The situation in Philly is obviously problematic journalistically. It's not hard to see how the relationship between the Daily News and Comcast could trickle down and affect editorial decisions. I think the reason it hasn't drawn as much attention or disapproval as Canzano's deal is that we've become used to the conflicts raised by corporate synergy and cross-promotion. Those problems are created mostly by business types, not journalists, and the writers and editors at the Daily News have little control over the situation the bigwigs have put them in.

Canzano, on the other hand, is a journalist who should know better. He's freely chosen to enter into this conflict of interest, and as journalists, that offends us a little more, or ought to. How can you trust the coverage of a writer who's probably pocketing more of Allen's money than anyone on the Blazers' PR staff?

It's true that conflicts of interest are everywhere these days, but does that mean that we should just let them all pass without criticism? If what Canzano's doing is OK, then where do we draw the line?

 

The person involved in this situation is secondary. Can't go case-by-case.

 

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I'm not going case-by-case. Any writer who did what Canzano is doing would be wrong.

 

Not directed to you, at all.

I disagree whole-heartedly with what Canzano is doing. And I think some are letting who is involved color their opinions of the situation. Wrong is wrong.

 

and i hope the WW doesn't let portlandites forget canzano's own words.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you upset your opinion is getting hammered like the town skank?

This is a textbook no-no. As many have said previously, it would be a fireable offense or, at the very least, a pick-one-or-the-other proposition at most papers.

As for the Philly Daily News guys on Comcast, they are ordered to go on the air as part of their jobs. A couple of guys I know do so reluctantly. That's on the paper. Canzano's situation is almost entirely on him, although once the paper gives permission their credibility takes a hit, too.

jgmacg ... awesome post. And I think the sentiment means even more for a columnist.

 

What's worse is your utterly blind, party-line, LeBatardian apologism because someone is in this field and may have smiled at you at one point.

 

Canzano isn't "one of our own" in this case, or at least not one of the 80-90 percent of us who see the obvious conflict of interest and would either say no to the Allen-owned radio station or would get enough money from it so we could say goodbye to the Oregonian. Besides, that's what an honor code is all about, the willingness to ID one of your own when that person violates the proper conduct. The ethics are bigger than the camaraderie. And we're not trashing -- we're trying to encourage John and the Oregonian to stay clean, even as they soil themselves as journalists.

 

left a message returning your call. Please call back at earliest convenience.

I can see where both sides are coming from here. Even if Allen isn't involved, the perception now exists that Canzano is "on the payroll".