Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

christ, life isn't Journalism 101

i can't believe what I'm reading

 

Well, life isn't Tammany Hall, either.

 

Actually, it was Mizzougrad96's foxhole (and Farrar's, for that matter) a long time ago. You're just returning the vitriol and "You're all just jealous because you SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" defense back to what had become a pretty good discussion.

 

I swear to God, there have been about 20 statements on this thread that should make any self-respecting journalist weep. Whoever said this thread is heartbreaking was exactly right.

 

Even smart people see bias where there is none. Sports makes us all crazy. What if the Blazers do something incredibly stupid, like make Greg Oden a point guard? And the columnist writes that it's a good idea, just because it's his opinion. You don't think the average reader is going to think: "Ah, he's just agreeing with them because they pay him to" -- even if that's not the case at all?

And there's one shred of your credibility you won't get back.

Even if he's not being biased, the public thinks he is. For the intents and purposes of this argument, the appearance of impropriety is impropriety.

 

The public might also think that he's being hard on the team to prove that he's not biased in favor of the team's management. As some guy said, the appearance of impropriety is impropriety.

 

Okay, I'll ask, and hopefully I'll get a reasonable answer.
Can a person get a paycheck and still be objective about his employer?
Isn't that really the heart of the matter?
The assumption is that Canzano can't be objective about the Blazers because he now gets a check that ultimately comes from the same person he criticizes, but someone like Howie Kurtz is considered by most to be a fair critic of CNN for the Post and on TV despite the fact he gets money from CNN or FAIR's Gladner rips on Fox, even though he gets paid by Fox.
So in what way is what Canzano doing different from Kurtz or Gladner or, for that matter, any ombudsman or reader's rep at any paper that employs one?
This whole thing about taking money from a source seems to imply that Canzano and Allen meet up in parking garage and Allen hands him a wad of greasy bills in exchange for talking nice about him on the radio.
Does anyone really think that's the way it is going to go down?
That's just not realistic, it isn't a black and white case. Lots of grey here and an informed decision was made on the local level by people who have previously demonstrated a committment to ethics.

 

I'll tell you what's really heartbreaking, reading Rick Reilly's story on Jim Murray on the other thread.

John: I assume you're still reading this. I met you at the CWS last June. If I was in your shoes, I'd like to think I wouldn't have done the same. But I have to ask myself, if I have a chance to make $80,000 to do radio, with a family to feed, what would I do? Would I really have the stones to say "I've got ethics?'' Interesting question. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I'll never have to answer that question. I have a hard enough time getting $50 out of Omaha radio.

This is a gray area in that everybody has their own definition of what ethics is, no matter what an ASNE or APSE book says. I think the bottom line here is whether or not you can look yourself in the mirror every day. If you can, John, there you go.

 

Boy, we lost us a chunk of this thread. Just as well.

 

That's a fair question.
If it's the only paycheck, it's unlikely you'll be put in a position to criticize that employer.
If I'm working for, say, the New York Times, and YES network offers me a side job, can I be objective about either? I'd like to think so, but I doubt my employers would agree, and readers/viewers probably wouldn't either.

 

No, the heart of the matter is, Can you completely TRUST someone who's getting a paycheck to be objective about his employer? That's the issue here. Take Canzano and the Blazers out of the equation. If you're confronted with two columns on the same team, and you find that one of the writers is paid by the team and one has no financial stake, which one are you more likely to believe is giving you a completely unbiased opinion? Canzano's arrangement with Allen's station may not change his coverage in the least, but as a reader, I'll never feel as sure of that as I did before he became an "independent contractor." He can dress it up with as many safeguards as he wants, but the bottom line is that he's giving people a legitimate reason to question his objectivity, and that's the last thing any journalist should do. You can't just say, "judge me on my work." Any intelligent reader is always going to consider the source.

 

Before you rip into this guy, you must ask yourself this question:
If somebody offered me $80K/yr and my employer approved it and I knew that accepting it would provide benefits to my family that they wouldn't otherwise have, would I take it? Given the totality of the circumstances, I'd take it.
This situation cannot be justifiably compared to a cop taking bribes from those he's supposed to discipline. Why not? Because that's patently illegal and his superiors could never condone it. The superiors at the Oregonian have given the go-ahead.
Be careful when expressing ethical outrage. And think of a very old saying and a Billy Joel album cover. (No, not "Turnstiles" or "52nd Street.")