Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

She doesn't here.

 

I'm sure that's true, but my question to you is, if you're really in it for the journalism, why the heck would you choose sports?

As per my previous post, covering sports contributes very little to the overall health of society. Don't take yourself so seriously.

 

And then the ethics are on them, not the reporter. Canzano's choice to accept money from a person he covers reflects on Canzano directly.

 

"Take no money from a news source" is sort of the "do no harm" of the journalism profession, isn't it? At least one of the precepts, anyway, if the business is to maintain any credibility?

Rejecting that seems a lot more douchebag-ian than respecting that, Zeke.

 

The Plain Dealer's ombudsman devoted an entire column a couple Sundays ago to a discussion of whether it was a conflict of interest for the paper's publisher to serve on the board of directors of The Cleveland Clinic. Ironically, the ombud is the PD's former sports editor!

Within the column, this quote from an editor: "I've always felt that the best way to manage conflicts, or perceived conflicts, is to publicly disclose them and to be as transparent as possible," she said. "That's what we're doing here today, and that's what we'll do going forward."

 

Question: Do sports writers still get into cover the games for free, or do you pay for your space at the game?

Becuase it seems to me that if you're a sportswriter taking free entry to the game -- unlike someone who, say, reviews a concert or play for a paper and the paper buys a ticket -- then how have you not already set your own price?

 

No, the fact I doubt you shows I know something about hyperbole. There are veterans on this board who would have trouble naming 250 sports journalists of any kind off the top of their heads. And yet you claim to know so many of them so intimately that you can name that many with conflicts of interest?

You are so full of shit your socks are squishing.

 

I'm with you on that one. That's why writers and papers shouldn't complain when they are moved out of prime locations, where press seating can be sold for thousands of dollars per game.

 

Why would they pay if they're not there to enjoy the game? It's work. If a theatre or concert hall had a press box, the reviewers wouldn't have to pay either, but they're taking up a seat. Dumb argument.

 

The other thing that bothers me here is the whole "public's perception" issue. I honestly believe all these holier-than-thou ethics discussions center on our perception of the public's perception.
How many Orgonian readers are going to say, "Wow, Canzano rips Allen all the time and now he's going to work at his radio station. That's unethical." How many even know Allen owns the radiop station?
Maybe one percent or less, I'd guess. The Oregonian's readers' perception of John will not change at all, we just think it will.

 

1 -- nope, but I ate their food
2 -- yep
3 -- yep
4 -- nope
5 -- nope
6 -- nope
7 -- yep

Damn that unethical Woodard and Bernstein for writing those books!!

 

Then shame on you. No wonder you're sticking up for Canzano so passionately. You're justifying your own lack of ethics.

The only ones you can justify are No. 5 if you weren't paid, No. 6 if you wrote it ABOUT and not WITH and No. 7 if you paid. You left out a lot of info.