Maygan Beeler
mb076912@ohio.edu
 |
| Photo provided via moldsensitized.com |
There are dozens of ways a story could potentially pose a
conflict of interest for a journalist. Perhaps the journalist knows a source
personally, belongs to a group named in the story, or accepted a sticker, CD or
cookie from a source. Maybe the journalist is an avid and obvious supporter of
a team, actor, candidate or fishing tournament participant central to a story. No matter how uncommon or seemingly unavoidable
a conflict of interest may appear, it’s never justified.
Free promotional materials and ethical implications of accepting them
The San
Francisco Chronicle story about perks accepted by journalists covering
the music industry mentioned promotional CDs as a necessary evil, and went on
to reveal that these free CDs are often traded in at used record stores. This
idea represents a serious conflict because it suggests media critics are
profiting from free items gifted to them by potential sources.
Editors at the publications where I’ve worked have insisted
any promotional materials (like CDs) that are necessary to write an informed
story must be borrowed and returned or destroyed. This seems to me the best course
of action because it clearly illustrates that the journalist is not in any way
indebted to the provider of the promotional material.
It’s important to be transparent with potential sources and
be sure that any person offering promotional materials in hopes you’ll cover
their group or cause knows you can’t guarantee a story, and certainly can’t
promise a favorable review. Transparency is essential to maintaining positive
source relations.
When it comes to accepting materials from sources or protestors
or random strangers pontificating on the street corner, I adopt a “better safe
than sorry,” attitude and refuse these items altogether. In most cases,
conflict of interest created by accepting promotional materials is avoidable. When
it isn’t, destroying the materials after you’ve used them solves the ethical
issue.
Publications covering a parent company
When a publication must cover a parent company, it is always
necessary to include an editor’s note or other disclaimer that alerts readers
to the relationship.
It is also the publication’s duty to cover good and bad news
involving their parent company, as Good Morning America was ethically compelled
to do this summer. Disney made headlines in June of 2016 for the grand opening
of their Shanghai theme park and a devastating alligator attack at it’s Florida
resort that left a toddler dead.
GMA covered the alligator attack extensively, and made
the decision to replace some of their Shanghai grand opening coverage with
news of the boy’s death.
ABC’s “World News” also prominently featured the gator
incident and appropriately disclosed ABC’s corporate connection twice during
their coverage.
This conflict of interest is often unavoidable, as is
evident in the Columbia Journalism Review article,
but transparency is key.
Political participation for journalists
The extent to which journalists can ethically participate in
politics is constantly being evaluated by professional groups like SPJ and
publications like NPR, as is showcased in this
story.
Though it can be difficult, (especially during an election
season) I’m not comfortable with any political participation beyond voting.
Alicia Shepard of NPR and Jack
Shafer of Reuters expressed similar opinions.
The election season policy for Ohio University’s independent
student-run newspaper prohibits reporters from signing petitions, wearing
political clothing and posting political opinions on social media among other
things. It is easiest to report fairly and objectively if these actions are
avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment