Debates about conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest have roiled universities for decades.
For example, when psychiatrists doing the research on treatment protocols for depression comparing talk therapies to medical interventions, or drug safety, turn out to have enormous undisclosed retainers from pharmaceutical companies, it creates a problem of at least the appearance that their research may not have been objective.
And in the field of journalism, Judy Miller, or Woodward did violate at least the appearance of conflict of interest standard by not disclosing their special arrangements giving them exclusive access to secret material in return for favorable press coverage for the Pentagon and White House.
Appearence Of Conflict Of Interest In Journalism
Did concerns for maintaining easy access to inside information and scoops sway Judy Miller and Bob Woodward to report the war in Iraq more favorably than they might have without such a vested interest?
Did the Pentagon, Libby and White House effectively bribe them to manipulate public opinion and exploit the credibility and purported neutrality of the New York Times, and Washington Post?
In my opinion, these are questions, readers of the NYT and WaPo should not have to worry about. So, yes,both Judy Miller and Bob Woodward are guilty of at least creating the appearance of a conflict of interest and inadequate disclosure of their special interest "arrangements" with the Pentagon and the White. And I would argue that this was also a real conflict of interest, that became material and consequential to those congresspeople and citizens who relied on misleading information to make up their minds on how to vote for the war and also for President George Bush in the 2004 election.
In an election where if even only a fraction of one percent of people in Florida had voted differently, Al Gore would have been president, we see an example, of how destructive undisclosed media manipulation under the guise of unbiased reporting can be.
The readers of the NYT and WaPo have a reasonable expectation of neutrality from purportedly independent and objective journalists.
I am baffled that Bob Woodward's editors still allow him to publish.
What Is A Reasonable Expectation For Daily Kos Participants?
Some have now raised the question of what is the reasonable expectation for front pagers at Daily Kos and other blogging sites? But I wish to raise this question for all the rest of us as well.
Here, the story is somewhat murkier? Do we have tacit expectation of impartiality or neutrality from front pagers, Trusted User Troll Raters, or even readers who wield considerable power and influence recommending diaries or comments?
If someone had trolled rated my recent diaries or comments calling for greater regulation of pesticides to protect our children without disclosing they were secretly working full time on the public relations staff of Dow Chemical, would I have a legitimate gripe?
But What Is the Expectation For a Blogger?
What if, I secretly become a consultant for Dow Chemical, and suddenly backed off my agreesive calls for greater pesticide regulation, and against government regulation? Would or should readers be concerned?
What are our collective expectations of disclosure and agency? Which of these expectations is reasonable? We need more discussion of the higher principles separated from past incidents we do not know the facts or and which may be known of our business. And we need to seperate the ideas from the individuals involved.
What Are the Reasonable Expectations of The Owners Of A Blogsite Such As Daily Kos?
Markos appropriately disclosed from the beginning that he was receiving money from Howard Deans campaign to create this site to help the Dean campaign. But what if he hadn't? Would we have a right to feel mislead?
What if Daily Kos were to secretly accept a large contract to campaign for one of the 2008 Presidential candidates?
My feeling is that folks should disclose financial or other relationships we they are in a position where they are influencing others who may be tacitly expecting neutrality or objectivity.
Mostly to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
Sometimes, honesty is the best policy.
Proposed Conflict of Interest Guideline
With regard to 2008 endorsement of particular candidates or accepting money to professional blog as an agent of vested interests, I expect many here, maybe even myself, will want to work either as a volunteer or professionally work for one of the Democratic candidates, or perhaps other parties in the future.
But if some lucky among us land consulting contracts to sit here all day pushing for our clients, we should probably disclose that interest, to avoid any confusion or resentment to those who might thing we were only volunteers representing the masses.
But for future reference, and to avoid misunderstanding in the future, I think we should evolve an explicit Conflict of Interest policy similar to the standard ones in universities, to guide expectations in the future.
I do not feel anyone specific has violated this policy yet, and it would be a difficult argument to make, because I don't think anyone here has ever represented him or herself to be a neutral or objective journalist.
But, greater mindfulness and forethought in advance could avoid potential appearences of conflict, other may be only too happy to try to exploit.