Can music journalists free themselves from conflicts of interests?

Music journalism is a career I have considered to pursue only to meet my favorite bands and musicians. The last time I took a music class was in elementary school. Despite my personal lack of qualifications, the world of music journalism has always fascinated me. Specifically, how journalists maintain their integrity and independence when they follow these musicians. 

According to an opinion piece written by Derk Richardson from the San Francisco Gate in 1999, music critics encounter conflicts of interest through cocktail party invitations, concert tickets and free CDs from the musicians they are critiquing. 

"If reviewers relied solely on the kindness of others to build their record libraries and get into shows, one might have reason to question the breadth of their knowledge and understanding, not to mention taste and critical judgment," Richardson wrote. 

Source: Rolling Stone Magazine 

I have a friend studying journalism who is a freelancer for a couple of national music publications. Once she was writing a review of an album and her publication expected her to write "good things" about the artist, despite her personal dislike of the album. Although she wasn't responsible for critiquing the music, she also shouldn't be expected to write exclusively "good things" about the album and the artist. 

Another criticism with music journalism that former employees have with the industry is fluff writing that thwarts journalistic integrity. The Sunday Guardian published a piece by Bhanuj Kappal that calls out the toxicity in indie music journalism. Kappal, who lives in India, said the problem is confined to India or indie music journalism. 

"These trends towards PR-driven churnalism are widespread in a global media industry struggling to make money on the internet," Kappal wrote. "But the lack of space for serious music journalism and the compromises music writers have to make is driving our best young talent out of the market. Disillusioned with the paid content paradigm, many young writers today are dropping out of music journalism in order to do jobs with more money and more integrity —like PR or advertising."

Kappal goes on to say good music critics are not distracted by conflicts of interest. Rather, they do their research and provide historical and musical context for their readers.  

"They look past the marketing and industry hype and bring to light new aesthetics and new artists," he wrote. "Through their writing, they engage both the audience and the artists in important conversations about where popular culture is and where it is heading. Without their honest voices, all you're left with is fluff and marketing."

Music journalists can avoid conflicts of interests by practicing discipline and diligence in their reporting and writing.

Conflicts of Interest and the PR Professional

Grace Morris

Morrisgrace36@gmail.com

In today’s day and age, it is nearly impossible to find an individual who does not possess any bias to at least some degree. The concept of conflict of interest is a growing ethical dilemma and problem that all industries face, especially within journalism and public relations. 

Whether it's covering news events or practicing public relations, there will be instances where we will not be able to avoid these conflicts of interest or biases. The most effective thing a journalist or PR professional can do to combat this dilemma is to remain honest and transparent while also following the code of ethics from their industry. 

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

According to the Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) code of ethics, it states that a member shall “Avoid actions and circumstances that may appear to compromise good business judgment or create a conflict between personal and professional interests.” As well as, promptly disclosing all existing or potential conflicts of interest that affect clients or organizations. These guidelines should be at the forefront of all PR professionals’ minds to ensure that they are maintaining a trustful and transparent relationship with their clients and organizations as well as the media and its viewers. 

There will be instances in which a PR professional cannot avoid these conflicts of interest or biases. For example, a PR professional is working for a firm that takes on a client that is known to copy ideas for products from small businesses. The PR professional’s knowledge and beliefs towards this company create a conflict of interest regarding his obligation to serve the client. 

Another instance where conflicts of interest or bias can come into effect is when a PR professional receives compensation or gift(s) from a client that goes beyond the salary they receive at work. For example, a PR professional receives an all-expenses-paid vacation at a luxurious resort from a client that owns the resort. However, the vacation does not help aid them in the completion of the job to the client and will only create an unnecessary conflict of interest and bias. 

According to an article from the Public Relations Media Ethics Resource Library, it that states that “the best way to handle conflicts of interest is to avoid them entirely—even the appearance of a conflict.” To deal with conflicts of interest, PR professionals should always provide disclosure, practice recusal, and abide by the code of ethics. These methods ensure that PR professionals are remaining transparent and honest by holding themselves accountable when situations regarding conflicts of interest or biases arise. 

Overall, PR professionals face this ethical dilemma in a variety of ways. However, the best method a PR professional can practice to avoid this dilemma is to remain transparent and honest while practicing the code of ethics, recusal, and disclosure. These self-policing measures provide professionals the opportunity to uphold the highest level of transparency and honesty while ensuring the safety and integrity of their clients, organizations, and themselves. 

A journalistic world where the rich get richer

 Wesley Minke

wm598119@ohio.edu

    If I were to tell you to flip on a television and watch sports what channel would you turn on? Your answer likely would be ESPN, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, it proves the known point around media, and sports in particular, that ESPN dominates the world. 

Photo via https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/espns_journalism_problem.php?page=all

    Many sports fans' favorite networks are becoming less and less relevant as ESPN signs more and more lucrative deals with the nations top organizations. This makes it hard for any game to get spotlight when a media giant like ESPN is leaving everyone else in an unfillable shadow. 

    This doesn't just hurt the other networks who want to be able to produce like ESPN. It makes them have to side with companies like ESPN to be successful at all. Often networks will partner up to become bigger, but when sports networks do such with ESPN, it makes them only larger, and gives them more eyes on them at all times. 

    We all love to see independence and variety, but it is growing increasingly more unlikely that we will see much of that in the future with all the underlying obligations many places will owe to each other. This becomes a bigger issue when something cannot be brought to light as it should be, because of obligations to not make someone look bad. Or the opposite of that, where some organizations have an obligation to cover one thing more than anything else. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/68669-espns-bias-has-reached-a-ridiculous-point

https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/espns_journalism_problem.php?page=all

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/691897-the-sell-out-of-espn-the-worldwide-leader-in-sports-and-bias

    These 3 examples I just listed in the links above show how in the past ESPN has shown bias to teams or even products while on air. It is simply mind boggling, and you would have to be crazy to think they can post these things, and support the things they do, and then independently and freely go cover something that has a direct correlation to what they just promoted or demoted. 

    I just think ESPN in particular, but really all networks need to reevaluate what they stand for, and what really looks best when it is representing an entire company and community. Deciding to breeze past a huge scandal, or not focus on a huge story from a team that is signed under contract with your brand could prove to everyone where you stand. Sometimes things are bigger than business, and independence needs to come into play for us to really be able to see and hear the truth that is needed in the world today. 

    My hope for the world of sports, but more importantly the world of journalism, is that we would stop fearing the what-if's of the world, and we would start doing the job the world needs of us. We have a duty to inform the world of what goes on, and it's about time we pick up on that responsibility and take it for what it is worth. 

Maintaining Independence while Being Dependent

 Cameron Robertson

cr102019@ohio.edu

Photo via Public Opinion Strategies

The world of Journalism becomes trickier and trickier to navigate with each passing day. Media outlets are becoming dependent on either corporations they are owned by, or the relationships and contracts that they have with others. 

The sports world and its vast array of media coverage is a shining example of this type of struggle and bias. Specific geographic publications, such as the Boston Globe or The Washington Post who can typically be overly critical of their local sports teams, may now feel pressure to do so due to ownership and potential ties to powerful people. But perhaps the most obvious example of this is ESPN, the "worldwide leader in sports."

As shown in the Columbia Journalism Review article, ESPN has a lot of vested interests when it comes to both the National Football League and College Football specifically. In just those two sports, ESPN has a reported $31.3 billion in revenue from simply television contracts. This certainly calls into question how the outlet chooses to cover these sports and more specifically, when it comes to the more unfavorable stories.

This is especially prevalent right now with the current stories coming out of the NFL. Former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden recently resigned from his position after a series of racist, sexist, and homophobic emails from his past were exposed in an investigation of the Washington Football Team.

What's important to note here is that this story was not broken by ESPN, who surely had to have had sources within the investigation, but rather in an expose by The New York Times. Also, Gruden happened to be a former employee at ESPN, further placing bias from their perspective on this story.

From my view as a member of the public, this specific instance has really pushed me to see the bias that ESPN does hold. I think that their coverage of the Gruden situation lacked importance, as they only really talked about it for about a day before they moved past it. Especially in a time where our country and the National Football League are pushing for inclusivity and equality, having an important and famous member of the League contradict that movement calls for more coverage than they provided.

This is just one example. As an avid sports fan who religiously watches, reads, and consumes ESPN content, every day I begin to see more and more examples of this bias that isn't just bleeding into the sports journalism world, but the entire journalism world as a whole. 

The objectivity is slowly declining, and that's a problem journalists need to fix before it's too late.

How Transparency Can Save Journalists

 Kevin McIntyre

km675818@ohio.edu

kevinmcin11@gmail.com

It is very common for a journalist to be faced with ethical dilemmas regarding conflicts of interest, and one of the most effective and honest ways to deal with these dilemmas is through the practice of transparency. There are instances in which conflicts of interest cannot be avoided, and in those cases, the worst thing a journalist can do is pretend like they do not exist. 

According to the Society of Professional Journalists' (SPJ) Code of Ethics, a journalist should: "Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content." This is a sentiment that should be shared by journalists around the globe, as it is the best way to minimize harm and maintain a truthful relationship with readers or viewers. 

                                          

                                                                                Source: Ad Fontes Media

Bias is something that is unavoidable when it comes to journalism. Every reporter is going to have opinions about a certain issue, but the true test of a journalist is being able to acknowledge those biases to him or herself. Moreover, a journalist should be able to acknowledge those biases to his or her audience. Once a journalist is able to be honest and transparent to an audience, the takeaway of a story is completely up to the reader, which is the goal of journalism. 

Transparency can take many different forms when a conflict of interest arises. For example: in the case of KCRG, an Iowa news publication, a conflict of interest was formed due to the increase of copycat school shootings when reported on by the media. This put KCRG in a difficult situation; release information about school shootings that the public may want to know, or publish a story that could potentially lead to a similar crime. 

To deal with this situation, the reporters at KCRG decided to be completely transparent with their viewers. In an article published in 2018, KCRG published a story about how they were not going to report on a story in which a threatening comment was reported to a local school. Instead of letting community members discover the news before they see a story, they stay ahead of the problem by acknowledging why a story was not published. 

This is an example of how transparency can help journalists when it comes to conflicts of interest. Oftentimes, the only way to maintain a healthy relationship with readers while in the midst of a conflict of interest is to be completely honest. 

Unique Stories May Benefit from Paying Sources

   By Zoie lambert

    zl963419@ohio.edu 

    In a perfect world, no one should take a bribe. Bribes show favoritism and erode any moral value a person may have. When you take or offer a bribe it shows that your values lie in self-interest. However, is there an opportunity for bribes to be not selfish deeds but selfless? Wikileaks proved in the journalism field that offering a bribe will benefit the public.  

    In 2015 WikiLeaks crowd-sourced "a $100,000 “bounty” on the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal." This was a big ethics problem in the eyes of many journalists. First, it conflicted with the ethical code of independence. We as journalists have to be influenced by the truth and nothing else. 

Logo of WikiLeaks a company that breaks or leaks classified information from anonymous sources.
 

    However, in this case, truth and public interest were the main motivations. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was a "backdoor" policy that was not revealed to the public but only to the government. As watchdogs of the government, it is important for us to let the public know what the government is up to and more importantly let the public have a debate or say in this legislation. 

    With the TPP legislation being kept a secret and heavily guarded Wikileaks asked for sources to leak any information involving the legislation and would pay them for it.  This situation according to Kelley McBride New York Times Opinion writer was a time "When It’s O.K. to Pay for a Story. She wrote an opinion article on this piece not agreeing that bribes should be acceptable in journalism but saying this certain situation permitted it. 

    Furthermore, I agree with her it is. In this unique case, the story was not published in the self-interest of the company but of the public. Although this did teeter the line of other journalism ethics like the accuracy of sources. They had to check the accuracy of sources who do not follow the journalistic value of truth. This is just one of few examples where journalists can offer bribes. 

     One situation when it is not okay to pay for a source is when the Bush administration was paying journalists to speak favorably about the administration. This bribe only served the columnist and the white house at that time. Of the three columnists that were paid to do this, Armstrong Williams was paid up to $200,410. These conservative columnists were told to speak favorably about white house initiatives like "no child left behind" and the "promotion of marriage". Being paid with tax-payer dollars this information was not disclosed to the public, unlike WikiLeaks. 

    Looking at the Wikileaks and George Bush situations, cases of bribing money are not cut and dry and still present ethical dilemmas. However, if journalists need to give money to sources it should not serve them but the public and thus it should be disclosed to them as well. 

Journalism Bias in a Biased World

 Amber Phipps 

amphipps.1102@gmail.com

ap836419@ohio.edu 

Journalism ethics is prevalent in more ways than just whether a violent video should be published or not. When covering news events, some instances can arise that pull our biases into relationships that are shared between the journalist and the person the story is about or the topic of the article. Typically, journalist ethics make a point of avoiding any biases in order to write a meaningful, factual story. Except with the availability of sharing opinions online and following just about anyone on social media, biases are inevitable and constantly surrounding our lives and the lives of those that give us our information. 

Source: Investigative Reporting Workshop 

Bias shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, and most often than not it's viewed in a negative context. Journalists should acknowledge that there are biases in the media because bias can allow journalists to shed some light and meaningful, truthful information on topics they know a lot about. While there's a fine line between informing an audience and providing opinions, journalists can provide further details on topics they're passionate about. 

Another reason that bias isn't necessarily a bad thing is that limiting journalists' topics due to bias will also limit the news that's available. Not allowing journalists to cover a situation because of their involvement or knowledge with the story might take away a lot of opportunities for a journalist and the organization they work for. The bias that occurs within relationships between the writer and the individuals involved in the story can also be beneficial when writing an insightful article. This bias doesn't have to be "one-sided" and allows for the story to include more information compared to someone who doesn't know the individual within the story.

Bias in the media is something that can be altered so it isn't manipulative and one-sided but rather informative and based off of knowledge maintained by the journalist. Being aware that there are biases is another step to take to ensure that the public is properly informed of the stories they're reading about and the preference held by the journalist. It's all about how the information is being presented and how the public needs to be aware of the connections and opinions held by the journalists involved in the story. 

In this day of age, it's essentially unavoidable to watch a completely unbiased, both-sided story, and it's unrealistic to hold these standards upon journalists. Changing the ways that the public views these biases is a step in the right direction towards gaining back the trust between the public and those that are informing it.