Comments on: Goose, meet gander: Answering The Times’ questions

By: Everything Between » Blogosphemers

Everything Between » Blogosphemers — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:42:17 +0000

[...] Possibly the most useful item floating through the Blogosphere this week (aside from, on a local level, the 225 things to do in L.A. meme – in celebration of the city’s 225th anniversary) is Buzz Machine’s Jeff Jarvis publishing this questionniare, given to any freelancer who intends to write for the New York Times. [...]

By: Mike G

Mike G — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:32:42 +0000

Holy crap. This is such idiotic ass-covering busy work, make every freelancer who writes 250 words for the Times write 2500 words covering every thing they’ve done in the last 20 years. Any good active freelancer will have HUNDREDS of answers for these questions, all potential minefields, all being kept in the little black book of the world’s most self-important paper/ How about asking them to list all their sex partners while they’re at it? (I hear that’s an issue with at least one famous NY Times correspondent who’s responsible for some recent trouble there.) Not that they would, but if I were of sufficient prominence to be asked to write something by the NYT, it would give me enormous pleasure to print this out, scrawl “Go fuck yourself” and send it back to them. My writing is my writing. This is just legal horseshit.

By: David Tebbutt

David Tebbutt — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:24:06 +0000

Surely ‘relevant disclosure’ is the key here. Total disclosure is insane. If I were paid by ‘Friends of the Earth’ to ghost write stuff (I’m not) and never ever write about the environment, what’s the point of the disclosure?

I try to avoid writing about clients and their competitors but disclose if the situation arises. Having said that, no amount of income on the side makes it worth jettisoning my integrity.

By: John Lison

John Lison — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:47:43 +0000

I listened to the NPR program on 17 April . You’re right, Michelle Martin just wasn’t getting it. Dvorkin, on the other hand, was as condescending to us news consumers as it is possible for an elitist to be. I’m not a journalist but I’ve read, watched and listened to the news in every conceivable media format for 50 + years. I would very much encourage your transparency suggestions becoming the norm. I can figure out who’s coming from where but it takes so much longer with younger journalists, particularly those highly skilled in slick practiced “objectivity”. I sometimes wonder whether they even have a clue from where they are coming.

By: Alan Kellogg

Alan Kellogg — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:58:59 +0000

My answers. The one thing I regret most about my situation is that it's simply not worth it to corrupt me.

By: Mythusmage Opines » Blog Archive » If Only I Were Conflicted :)

Mythusmage Opines » Blog Archive » If Only I Were Conflicted :) — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:55:02 +0000

[...] Jeff Jarvis has a few questions for you from the New York Times. Below you’ll find my answers. [...]

By: Bobbie Johnson

Bobbie Johnson — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:15:58 +0000

I think public disclosure is absolutely fine, as long as it does not endanger the journalist, contacts or any stories. Editorial decisions should be transparent and so should journalistic endeavour.

I don’t agree that this assumes financial interest influences or corrupts your work; I just think it makes it far harder for journalists who *do* pursue those interests through their work to get away with it.

By: AJ Lynch

AJ Lynch — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:08:10 +0000

Good move by the Times.

And I think those who pen guest OPEDs should be required to disclose their approximate income from the cause they are espousing. I can’t count the number of times I have written Opeds by an Executive Director at a non-profit that wants to rstrict farmland development or wants to ban soft drinks in schools or some other narrow-focused cause. Disclosure is good. Hell let’s advocate CNN and Fox etc make the guest expert dislclose the same info. How many times have you seen some 28 year-old terrorism expert giving his expert advice on a news analysis show.

By: The Anchoress » How now, Anchoress, whither wander you?

The Anchoress » How now, Anchoress, whither wander you? — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:52:08 +0000

[...] Also, thanks to Public Eye which has added me to the blogroll! They link and respond to an interesting challenge by Jeff Jarvis. [...]

By: Robert Feinman

Robert Feinman — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:25:03 +0000

This assumes that those with a financial interest (no matter how small) will be influenced by this. While on the other side a person could be completely biased by natural inclination without any overt conflict of interests. ideologues are what people get upset about, not stock shills.

I doubt that David Brooks, for example, would change his position on globalization because he owned a few shares in company A vs company B. Disclosure can’t hurt, but I’m not sure it will really help.

By: Richard Bailey

Richard Bailey — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:56:27 +0000

It’s a worthy campaign, but a problematic one. I won’t immediately follow the disclosures because they make my life look blamelessly dull. (A problem we face with politicians: hands clean, or fingers in pies?)

As for journalists, would you avoid hiring someone as a sports reporter because they were a season ticket holder at one club, or would you hire them because of their evident interest in and commitment to the sport? You’re right, disclosure has to be the answer…