Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

Different platforms, Ace. Not different employers. Not when your job for one is covering the other.

 

If his paper is OK with it, and he is mindful of the conflict, what's the problem?

 

No problem if they have the same rules in play for others at that shop. Hell, let everyone on the staff get a flat-screen TV from Paul Allen.

 

Because when John goes out and buys one with his radio money, that's exactly what it will be.

 

No, you couldn't.

 

I, for one, am glad we have people like Joe willing to sit high on the throne and judge others with such moral superiority.

That said, however, the fact is that perception is reality, and there is definitely a perception here of a conflict. I'd still rather judge John on his work and on his own actions than assume that he has sold himself out to Paul Allen.

The first time something negative happens with the Blazers, there will be people reading and listening to John and to get his opinion. No matter how strong a stance he takes, there will be people who say he was unfair and other people who say he was too soft on the team. Coincidentally, that's the same reactions that he gets now, I'm sure.

Quoting the lead to a column by a former columnist I used to work with... That's my two cents worth of your quarter.

 

Sure he could. Those three I listed off the top of my head, and I didn't even think of the guys whose bylines I've seen on articles in the Indians Gameday mag they sell at games. I can think of at least three more I've seen there. So that's five just for the Cleveland area.

 

The blondebomber's not good enough to work for the Indians and the Plain-Dealer, dammit.

 

This is not to condemn John Canzano or any of those people, but that in a nutshell is why "sports journalism" is basically a misnomer. I don't think pristine "sports journalism" has ever existed, really. From the old days of writers out drinking with athletes and overlooking their shenanigans to the current day media rights fees and sponsorship, when the hell has there not been a conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise?

The truth is, sports is the toy department. I don't know why so many take that as an insult, because everybody goes into sports because they think it will be fun. Nobody says to themselves, geez, I feel compelled to make a contribution to the overall health of society, so I think I'll go into sports.

Is what Canzano is doing "honorable"? Probably not, but it doesn't really matter. Because in the grand scheme of things, sports has no great honor anyway. So there's a conflict of interest. Nobody's life depends on it.

 

Like it or not, what Joe said earlier is true. There's one set of rules for the columnists and another set for the unwashed masses who cover beats. Worst part is, a lot of these columnists with radio deals are supposed to maintain an ethical distance by not being actively involved in getting the sponsorships that pay for them to be on the air. But in truth, they are involved.

I could name a couple of names, but won't. You selfrighteous hypocrites know who you are.

 

If we combined a list, 100 would be easy as pie. I work at the No. 2 paper in a metro area of three and I can name four in my department off the top of my head. If I did my research, I bet it would be closer to six or seven. (edit: For the record, that includes beat guys.)

 

Selfrighteous Hypocrites would be a good name for a band -- maybe Christian Metal