Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

Storm Front?

 

one douchenozzle wrote: "readers are too stupid ..."

which pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter. folks in our business such as the douchenozzle, canzano and the rest don't understand we don't do what we do simply to satisfy ourselves.

and we wonder aloud why the newspaper biz is going in the shitter.

the day will soon come when canzano will wish he hadn't had a momentary absence of ethics. oregonian readers aren't "too stupid" to make an obvious connection.

 

i didn't know we were for sale.

 

Another question, rhetorically I guess: Has John ever written a piece about the Blazers that wasn't the popular public perception? Hell, I'll bet he's taken some pride in doing that a time or two. On those occasions, the readers could dislike his column, question his smarts, wonder if he's being controversial simply to "make a name" for himself or ignore him completely. Now they'll be able to start their list with, "Aw, he's giving us the Blazers' company line."

Also, forget about the columns that appear under his byline (or mug or whatever they do there). Any potential column that doesn't get written, any strong anti-Blazers stance not taken, will be assumed to be the product of John's two-pronged employment.

This also is a bigger deal, I think, because of the nature of the market. The Blazers are the Portland team, in terms of big-time status. Paul Allen is the Portland owner. John is the Portland columnist. I always liked that the Oregonian had a chafing relationship with the Blazers, because it would have been much easier to get all cozy and overly cooperative in a one-team (major league) and one-paper market. This really is a slap at the paper's proud tradition of scrutinizing, hard, the NBA team. At least on its face.

If it was a Denver or a Boston or a Philadelphia and one team's owner employed one paper's columnist but there were plenty of other significant columnists and major teams, then to me it would just be a bad ethical decision by that one writer and his editors. There would still be credible watchdogs. Now not so much.

 

Sirs, Madames,

It's not that hard. If you can plausibly ask if there is a conflict of interest, you've already answered the question. No matter what conditions jc puts in place, no matter if he's paid in cash deposits brown-bagged in the back of his freezer, no matter if he slams the Blazers every day, he's doing a show on the team owner's radio station. Frankly, even less of a connection would constitute conflict (potential for conflict constituting conflict). Let's say the station was independent and merely buying the radio rights for the Blazers and Canzano--however big the columnist's ratings I'me presuming that the team is dog and jc tail as far as the station would be concerned. Would the team look to go elsewhere with the rights if slammed on radio by jc or would it simply express unhappiness to the station management? Would station management act pre-emptively? This story is 100 proof conflict and 80 proof would more than get you drunk. If you have to ask, you're drunk/conflicted.

And, please, with regard to books, it's authorized stuff that's problematic. It has been up here a couple of times. Writing about something you cover: Kosher. Writing with (as told to, authorized by, etc) someone: Clearly not. And whenever a newspaper does one of those gawdawful ghosted columns by an athlete for pay--the Globe and Mail's Mike Weir columns were bad but the worst ever were 99's columns for the National Post--it makes my skin crawl. You could make a case that books can be the purest, most conflict-free enterprise out there.

YHS, etc

 

I'm with you on 99.9 percent (proof?) of what you say.
Only reservation is if a newsman saves stuff for his book, rather than offering it first (or just doing it first in course of daily coverage) to his newspaper. If length or type of info (really detailed inside-ball tales) wouldn't make the paper anyway, fine. But no good to find out in a book about Randy Moss, for example, that he hated Tom Brady through the 2007 season, if a Pats beat writer authors the book in 2008.

 

Mr Williams,

The case you make -- that's a conflict between the news organization and the writer, not a conflict of interest with regard to news gathering and reporting. (See Bob Woodward ... if you have to.) That's a matter of ownership rather than truth-telling.

YHS, etc

 

No conflict with you, friend.

 

And every article about the Red Sox in the Boston Globe is in the team owner's newspaper.

 

Dude....

This country, in so many ways, had better re-find "the old days."

 

Asked and answered, SP, again and again and again. That particular conflict has been written and talked about - and condemned - extensively. Corporate collusion and top-down conflict is out of the hands of the individual.

 

If you don't think there is an issue here, you DO need to be told how to lead your professional life.

Being able to write a viewpoint with NO ONE being able to say, well he gets paid $80,000 by the Blazers owner.... that means a fucking lot.

Now, Canzano can't write a positive Blazers column and have anyone think it is legit and not greased.