I can also think of lots of
Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Thu, 08/23/2007 - 8:01am.

I can also think of lots of cases. The readers will not differentiate an individual conflict from a group conflict. I think to assume otherwise is absurd.

Just one small local example - the Arizona Republic owns a piece of the Arizona Diamondbacks. There is a massive "The Arizona Republic" sign spanning the top of the scoreboard.

Its main columnist, Dan Bickley, has a morning talk show on KGME, owned by clear Channel. Its chief local competition is KMVP, owned by Pulitzer, which also owns a piece of the Diamondbacks.

So if Bickley jumps to KMVP is he now eligible for a tar and feathering for selling out his ethics? After all, Pulitzer owns the Diamondbacks.. just like his primary employer does.

Do we only excuse the Trib writers that were there prior to the purchase of the Cubs, and decide that anyone who hired in after the purchase sold out his ethics?

I certainly understand the discomfort with Canzano's radio gig, but honestly, newspaper management blurred the line years ago. If you have a line in your mind that you're unwilling to cross, good for you, but don't expect readers to recognize that line.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Voting controls can be added to this post.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
More information about formatting options