Wednesday
(0)This morning I ran full tilt into a journalistic conflict of interest issue. I had to pull half of a story because my official position within an organization gave a subcontractor contractual clout. Their rules required a veto over publication of information on the event. The story items were neither earth-shaking nor of great import. Nonetheless, I was not allowed to use information I felt important to my article.
I feel it necessary to state this publicly as a matter of integrity. I do not claim that all blogs and bloggers should or must always do so. It is a matter of their individual choice. You, the reader, will place your trust accordingly.
I know such issues have been discussed here and there in both main stream and the practically main stream of major blogs. I certainly do not think there is any problem that most bloggers have real lives and work with real organizations doing real things. Or that bloggers make little or no pretence of being unbiased angels in white, pure mindless beings with no belief or ideals, capable of weighing ideas as the Egyptian God Ma'at weighed souls. We are not. We have no interest in being boring and unopinionated.
Here at Samizdata we attempt a reasonable level of professionalism in our writing and presentation. I am certain we do not always meet the full level of our aspirations, but we do indeed try. What we can promise is that our biases and conflicts are out on the table for all to see.
>bloggers have real lives and work with real organizations doing real things.
Speak for yourself, Dale. I'm a non-real blogger who works with fantasy organizations doing unreal things. And how I love it. God, how I love it. Why, only today I was working with Porky Pig on a major new bridge project linking Tasmania with Toontown.
Posted by Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny at May 11, 2005 10:51 PM
Way to do a full disclosure. It's an "affirmative honesty" that I find quite refreshing.
Question: Do you feel your story is a half-truth without the information? Do you think it would have been better not to publish it at all?
Also: are you prevented from passing on your notes to another reporter? I'm just wondering how enforcable the provisions are.
Posted by Cardozo Bozo at May 12, 2005 12:09 AM
Would Dale mind calming down and telling us what actually happened?
Is Dale a journalist? for what paper?
In what organization does he hold a position of trust and honor?
Who is the subcontractor, and what does he do for the organization, or is it for the paper (if there is a paper)?
What clout? Dale’s position within an organization gives a subcontractor (to whom?) “contractual clout?” What sort of a contract would that be? “Subcontractor has right to order about any officer of contracting organization” is a contract clause?
What is the event? The subcontractor’s annual meeting? Their picnic?
Pulling a story might be evidence of some sort of integrity (or of being soreheaded), but pulling “half a story” sounds like merely suppressing the facts Dale is somehow contractually obligated to suppress.
Please explain yourself.
Posted by anonymous coward at May 12, 2005 05:45 AM
You can probably figure it all out by reading the story I filed earlier that day. I may well write more when it is no longer possible for the issue to cause problems for a non-profit organization in which I carry a fiduciary responsibility. It's not a big thing *this time*; you missed out on some nice photos associated with the original longer item. Big issue or not, I could not let it pass unnoted. And I will not at a future time either.
Posted by Dale Amon at May 12, 2005 01:57 PM
If you weren’t allowed to publish photos, presumably because someone else wants to sell those or other photos, I can understand your chagrin and our loss, but would preferred you to have simply said so.
I did like your pictures of Burt Rutan’s space flight and look forward to more of the same when they unmuzzle you.
Posted by anonymous coward at May 12, 2005 02:43 PM
