Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

Don't forget the hot dog, Mizzou.

I never pass up the hot dog.

 

And it's still fucking unethical.

 

Is Orlando now the God of sports journalism ethics?

As for No. 7, a 7A could be eaten food at a press conference. Even a soda. If everyone's a stickler, well there's another one.

As for No. 2, some newsrooms have a policy about that and some don't (at one paper I've worked at, everything everyone gets for free goes into a pile where we have an auction every three months on it with the $ going to a charity).

But honestly, if you've never done any of them, you must think you're pretty high and mighty.

 

This thread is heartbreaking.

 

Props to Mizzou for his honesty and I'll bet the majority of beat writers in the country are 4 or 5 for 7 on that list. I'm 6 for 7 and I'd be 7 for 7 if the coach I covered didn't leave for another job a couple years back.

 

That's probably true...until the competition points it out.

I do think many of the debates on this site are extremely fast to judge and slow to get the facts, and John's explanation addressed a lot of the questions I had. I understand, logically, why he believes it works for him and his paper.

But it reminded me of this time I got pulled over for speeding, and I had this great justification for why I was speeding...and the cop said, 'That's an explanation, not an excuse.'

I don't think his decision to do this taints the industry, or premeditates the decline of the newpaper business...it's a reflection on him, that's it. It's his decision, his credibility, and ultimately, his career.

Great debate, either way.

 

spnited,
It's my experience readers notice an awful lot about us. They care about what we write, how we report, how the story is displayed and headlines used. They notice if we treat one team "better" than another, if we appear to like or dislike certain players and/or coaches, if we lean toward certain issues.
And I'm sure you'd agree, we should always operate under the assumption that the reader matters.

John,
Simple question, and I guess you've already answered it, but I'd like to hear a concise response. Do you think it's OK if reporters (and that includes columnists) accept money from the people they cover?
Because I bet if we asked our readers the same question, they'd say no.

 

Mizzou,

My beef isn't with the fact the station broadcasts the games. It's that Allen owns it. Just broadcasting the games means nothing...his paycheck (presumably) is coming from the same person as the people he covers. That's odd to me.

But there is a lot of gray area out there. I'm not sure exactly how I feel.

 

I think those who believe the public doesn't concern itself with analyzing media ethics are living a very sheltered life. I am pretty far to the left, but I do listen to conservative talk radio and there are plenty of people who spend more time critiquing media ethics than I do. That they may be misinformed is beside the point -- the point is that some people (VERY LOUD people) do spend more time thinking about this than I would consider healthy. I think some of you are operating under the assumption that the public has a neutral or positive opinion of the news media. They don't. They assume the worst and then seize upon any breach, no matter how trivial, as the latest GOTCHA! Since the "porno tab" has already gotten the discussion out there, it is in the public arena and it's silly to believe this is only a matter of interest within the newsroom or within a journalism message board. Whether they public arrives at its opinion independently, or whether someone has swayed them to a way of thinking, it will now be on people's minds.

 

I've done the same three you have. I didn't feel good about #3 though and I wouldn't do it again. I'd do #2 and #7 again though.

 

Well, to be fair . . .you DID say you could list 100 without even thinking about it. Nothing wrong with someone asking for you to produce on that claim (which I don't dispute, by the way).

spnited: ALL ethical discussions are based on how others perceive us. Ethics matter because our ability to do our job well depends on sources and readers seeing us as beyond reproach. And yes, we (including my own post on the previous thread) sometimes get tied up in knots worrying about these things. But the fact that a bitter reader can cause a lot of trouble for us with a little information is unavoidable.

As for Mizzou's list: I've accepted t-shirts, bobbleheads, etc. And I would write a book with or about an athlete I cover if I had the opportunity. A college friend who works for an MLS team was a ticket connection for me a couple of times. But only the worst think-tank dork actually thinks that accepting a fracking bobblehead or t-shirt affects our precious ethical ability to describe the fact that a team played like crap.

 

The next time someone hands you $80,000 worth of T-shirts at media day, send up a flare.