Is Canzano being unethical?

No, it's taking $$$ from someone you cover that speaks for itself. That's what people have been pointing out repeatedly on this thread. Now that he's on Allen's payroll, all of his work will be open to question. If Greg Oden shoots 2-12 and Canzano doesn't rip him a new one, is it because he doesn't want to piss off the owner? Even if he writes a negative piece on the team, did he hold anything back? How much is he not telling us? Now that he's taking Allen's money, those are legitimate questions. You can't just tell people, "Trust me," when you're giving them a reason not to.

 

he's obviously a dumbass, period. now, according to him, he's above having his ethics questioned. that was a bad, bad response on his part, one he will pay for.

i thought he was smarter than this. it's too bad.

 

No, it won't speak for itself.

If there is something critical, readers will wonder "Gee, how bad is it really? It must be worse than Canzano is painting it."

 

bu, bu, but john has a spotless record. we are morally wrong to suggest his public might question his ethics ... fuck, even john told us to stop reading and listening. that is the answer, afterall.

 

Get a load of this bloviating from Oregonian editor Sandra Rowe back in March, over what was a far less (but real) ethical breach in her newsroom. This was her stern finger-wagging at a reporter who parked his car in a source's lot gratis:

http://media.wweek.com/docs/TomHallman-memo.pdf

"As most of you have heard, we took a series of disciplinary steps last week involving Tom Hallman. Tom had accepted an offer from Andy Wiederhorn last year to park in the lot at his Goose Hollow offices. Tom did so over a period of months. Tom has acknowledged that accepting this offer was a serious ethical breach, given Wiederhorn’s controversial past, the fact he continues to be in the news and because Tom did a series on Wiederhorn eight years ago. At the time, it didn’t occur to him this would be a problem,
as he no longer reports on Wiederhorn or had any plans to do so in the future. Tom acknowledges his failure in judgment, is extremely contrite, has apologized repeatedly and deeply regrets any impact this may have on the paper.
Because of the seriousness of this matter, Tom will be off work for two weeks without pay. He will no longer have senior writer status. He will send Wiederhorn a check for $500 to compensate for the parking even though Wiederhorn does not charge for any spaces in the lot. For the foreseeable
future, Tom will withdraw from any outside teaching and speaking
activities relating to the newspaper. When he returns to work, he will participate in a series of ethics discussions with Managing Editor Therese Bottomly.
Tom is a loyal and talented 26-year employee whose work at The Oregonian
has established his place with readers as well among journalism’s best narrative writers. This does not change. When he returns we will welcome him back and support him, just as this newsroom does when any of our colleagues
face personal or professional difficulties.
We all know the credibility of our work depends on the highest levels of ethical behavior and decision making, even when an action doesn’t relate to one’s current assignment or affect a specific story published in the newspaper.
We don’t take gifts of value from sources. We’ll be talking more about that and other matters relating to sound ethical decision making in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, if you have any questions please let me or Peter or one of the MEs know."

Yeah, the watchdogs really are on the case in Portland.

 

I hope Canzano puts another room on his house just so he can have someplace to weep.

 

As a matter of personal preference, I'm going to disregard unsubstantiated allegations about whatever missteps may or may not have been made by specific individuals mentioned in this thread. I'm also going to set aside whatever decisions may or may not have been rendered by newspaper editors or executives. I don't have firsthand knowledge of any of these folks, nor any of these institutions or occurrences. It's always an awkward thing when these board arguments move from a general priniciple to a specific person or incident.

My position, that we never take money from someone or something that we cover, has been made plain.

In fact, here's a cautionary tale about a writer who took money from people he covered. http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/45460/

In service of our younger members, however, of whom there are many, one last thought on this thread.

Your professional reputation is priceless. And it is irreplaceable. It is the one thing you possess across the arc of your career that is entirely your own. It is well beyond money, or power or fame. It exists separate and apart from the moral climate of the times in which you live and work; and it exists in you as a set of individual imperatives even in a time of corporate merger and collusion. As a practical matter, your reputation - for good sentences, for good ethical practice, for all the things we prize as journalists - is what gets you the next job. And the next, and the next.

As a personal matter, your reputation should mean everything to you. Guard it like treasure. And spend it at your peril.

Because far out in the distance, when you come to the end of things, you learn that even more than the work, your reputation was all you ever had that was really yours.

Once compromised, it can never be made entirely whole again. Ever.

 

That will be my Post of the Year.

 

The argument that it's OK because it's OK with the Oregonian rings hollow. That assumes that all corporate decisions are correct. So those supporting the situation because it's fine with the Oregonian will applaud the next round of layoffs a newspaper makes because, hey, it was fine with the newspaper

 

As pleased as I was with my J-school education way back when, and the journalism ethics course in particular, someone should have spent a day's lecture on the significance of one's reputation. It is more defining than our work, since other people and outside circumstances can alter our work.

Those in Portland who choose to ignore the grievous breach of ethics, out of stubbornness or greed, are sledgehammering their reputations by the day.

 

Cash as justification..... precisely.

 

The only thing I want to say is that I have read this thread and between the moderators and posters, this is really chippy communication. Why can't people use civility and respect for each other? Can things be conveyed a little politer between everyone?

People do have differing opinions, but there is a better way to communicate them instead of personal attacks. There are going to be sensitive topics like this one, but some posters need to to treat each better. If you want respect, give respect.