Is Canzano being unethical?

This proliferation of columnists doing this sort of TV/radio certainly lends credence to the derisive relegating of our profession as the Toy Department, rife with people who aren't working a real work week to begin with.

 

Following the logic of attacking Canzano, the Tribune should not have covered the Cubs for all the years the Tribune Company owned them.
Sorry.
Not buying, Mr. Alt Weekly.

 

god, that sand surrounding your head must feel nice and cool this time of year.

 

Kornheiser was prohibited from taking his radio show to Dan Snyder's station. Yet, of course, Washington Post radio carries Nationals games, which is also a conflict.

 

grad - i think that's the point, nobody wants to take his word for it.

it's like giving a solid guy your debit card and your pin number to go pick up pizzas for your department when you are busy as hell but are buying. do you give the guy your card and pin or do you find another way to pay for the pies?

sorry, i write a check or stop by the cash machine.

 

If this situation isn't a conflict of interest (of course it is but some are arguing that it ain't), I'm curious what WOULD qualify? We can all say we're good, upstanding journalists who wouldn't be swayed, but the appearance of having the potential of being swayed -- in either direction -- makes this a no-brainer no-no. The only thing that separates this from an outright bribe is that Canzano is going to go talk into a microphone for two hours a day.

No financial relationships with the people you cover. Why is that so hard to understand? And the more direct it is (this one vs. the Cubs/Tribune, where no sportswriter's pockets get lined), the worse it is.

 

i don't think our profession can judge instances such as this on a case-by-case basis.

 

So we're talking wrong and wrong. Not wrong and right.

 

grad - the implications of "the man" sponsoring a team and an individual being paid by "the man" are two different beasts.

 

I see some point to what Mizzou is saying. Newspapers for years have been putting their reporters in position of having a perceived conflict of interest because of their own corporate activities, which are done for the company's financial benefit. I mean, the Tribune on one hand made reporters give away every small bit of swag sent their way for ethical reasons while on the other owned a team reporters covered, and engaged in other corporate activities (for example, lobbying to remove rules limiting TV-newspaper cross-ownership in a single market) that you could perceive forcing reporters to pull their punches.

Right or wrong, you get the feeling more people are saying, hell, if the paper is going to make money off of me and my work in these things, why shouldn't I cash in myself? And add another line to my resume to protect myself for the day I inevitably get bought out/laid off?

 

the oregonian is laying canzano off, well, never.