Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

OK, so if Mizzou contacts his team of regional stringers and has each of them cull together a list in every major city, then he could come up with a good number of TV journalists with loose ethics out scrambling for a buck. (If that doesn't validate Canzano, then I guess nothing does.)

I'd like for him to come up with 100 "without even thinking about it," and "off the top of [his] head" and in "in a situation similar to Canzano's." That would mean newspaper writers, not sportscaster jagoffs.

The only time it should take is the time to type them out ...

 

The "local weekly porno tab"? Ain't that a bit petty (sorry, TP)? It brought up an issue that a board of pro journos has been debating for days. Pretty nice work, I'd say. And citing all kinds of examples of synergy/expanding the brand/getting yours/whatever is, to me, more of an argument against those arrangements rather than for what you are doing.

 

In fairness dools, if you lived in the area and read the WW on a weekly/ever basis, you'd understand the moniker JC gave it.

 

I'm not sure that Canzano needs to be validated. Perhaps it's a chunk of the rest of us. Since many seem to be uneasy about this, some just want to point out that it's not as rare as it is being made out to be.

Canzano's not the first by far and I'm sure he won't be the last.

 

To those who find nothing wrong with Canzano's deal, I pose this question: What would you consider an unacceptable conflict of interest? Seems to me that if this is OK, just about anything goes. If Bill Plaschke accepts 100 grand to write for Kobe's website while still writing about the Lakers for the LA Times, is that cool, as long as he swears to remain objective, cross his heart and hope to die?

I can't believe that there are supposed journalists who are suggesting that the notion that it's wrong to accept money from the people you cover is some sort of antiquated idea. Yes, other conflicts of interest exist in lots of indirect ways, and one of the worst aspects of that, aside from diminishing the credibility of our profession, is that it slowly erodes our standards to the point where some of us let egregious conflicts like Canzano's slide by with a shrug.

 

So now we're back trying to negotiate the price at which it's an ethical breach. Which confirms that it is.
Good post, broadway joe.

 

If newspapers are willing to accept payment for full-page ads from Countrywide Financial and still report on the company, I'm willing to bet a sports reporter can accept money from a team while working for its radio station, or whatever he's doing. Heck, if this guy is so critical of the Blazers, it's a smart move for Paul Allen to hire him. The Blazers look all the better if they can hire a guy who has been critical of them and allow him to remain critical.

 

The reporter covering Countrywide Financial doesn't have a damn thing to do with accepting a full-page ad from Countrywide Financial.

 

You don't want to take this down the whole separation of advertising and editorial road, do you?
Do you really not see the difference in this?
Guess we have more folks in here for the sports than for the journalism. Or because they didn't want to sell insurance for a living.

 

The publisher of the newspaper does. He decides what goes in. We've all seen publishers kowtow to advertisers.

 

It's a slippery slope.

 

You know, Joe, you can make your points without being quite the gigantic douchebag you're currently coming across as.

Food for thought.