It's always been my impression that journalists should avoid covering stories in which they have an interest -- even the hint of a conflict of interest.
At the very least, we should expect a "full disclosure" disclaimer.
For quite a few years, National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson has also appeared on Fox (you should excuse the expression) News.
Recently, Liasson went on NPR to talk about Fox's attempted high-tech lynching of Shirley Sherrod (h/t to Frank Rich for the lynching comparison).
Am I the only person who thinks there might be a problem with that?
I fired off this message to NPR on the helpful contact-us portion of their internet (sorry about my punctuation error and rough prose, but for full disclosure I won't change them):
Shouldn't Mara Liasson, for full disclosure, make it clear to listeners that she moonlights for Fox News, if she's going to cover a story in which Fox is a major player if not the instigator. Fox gives her exposure and (you'd assume) money; doesn't she face the temptation to go easier on them than she should?
Not everybody knows she has more than one job. When she's on Fox, doesn't that organization usually ID her as an NPR reporter? Surely NPR should return the favor to Fox. Or do something really radical, and assign the Sherrod story to a reporter who has no conflict of interest.
This morning I was pleasantly surprised to get this email response on my google:
Dear Tom,
We appreciate your sharing your concerns about Mara Liasson with us.
Mara Liasson is an accomplished and respected journalist with more than 20 years of experience. As a national political correspondent on NPR, she has covered five presidential elections and has earned numerous awards for her coverage of the White House. Her extensive political knowledge has made her a sought after voice on television and radio.
NPR journalists are held to a strict code of ethics and practices, which are in place to protect and support their integrity, impartiality and conduct. We encourage you to review the code, which is posted online at http://www.npr.org/...
We, again, thank you for your comments. Your thoughts will be taken into consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff
NPR Services
202-513-3232
www.npr.org
The reply is appreciated. Well, let's take this point-by-point:
Nobody here is questioning Liasson's accomplishments, respectability, experience, or knowledge.
Maybe I spoke too soon in accusing her of conflict. Maybe there's a difference between the legal definition (if there is one) and the sort of thumbnail common-sense definition that you or I would apply. Maybe we should just ask if there is a potential conflict. To judge by the comments to the NPR transcript, I'm not the only person who wonders.
We sure talked a great game about conflict of interest in journalism school, when Woodward and Bernstein walked the earth along with the velociraptor and the T-rex. We talked about it a lot. What did it mean when Hugh Downs or Barbara Walters on The Today Show (I told you it was a long time ago) shilled for a product?
We wouldn't call them ... journalists, now, would we? Would you do a thing like that as a journalist? We students all nodded wisely and agreed that we would never, ever do such a thing. We would conduct ourselves like Caesar's wife.
(Running with a story about--random example--a speech on racial issues, without even having heard the whole thing or even talking to the person who gave the speech, was of course unthinkable even in Journalism 101, or as we called it, Journalism 125, as was the style at the time at Penn State.)
(Full disclosure: I have a degree in journalism, albeit not much used since I decided to sell out what talent I have to corporations instead.)
Still, if you do look up the part of the NPR code about conflict of interest, you find this; emphases added by me (full disclosure):
- A conflict of interest in its simplest dictionary term is a conflict between the private interests and the professional responsibilities of a person in a position of trust. An operative word in this sentence is "trust." All of us are in positions of trust with our audience. To maintain that trust requires that there be no real or perceived overlap between the private interests and opinions of NPR journalists and their professional responsibilities.
- An employee covered by this code has the responsibility to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Revealing a conflict of interest after an individual has already participated in coverage where such a conflict exists or appears to exist can be extremely damaging to the reputation of NPR. NPR journalists must, at the time they are first assigned to cover or work on a matter, disclose to their immediate supervisor any business, commercial, financial or personal interests where such interests might reasonably be construed as being in actual, apparent or potential conflict with their duties. This would include situations in which a spouse, family member or companion is an active participant in a subject area that the NPR journalists covers.
I'm not saying Liasson did a bad job in this case, does a bad job in general, shouldn't go on Fox, or that whatever compensation (including whatever boost you get from national TV exposure) Fox gives her has clouded her judgment. She could have been a lot tougher on Fox -- but then I always think that about anything concerned with Fox, and my opinion on that isn't really relevant.
The appearance of a reporter from oh-so-liberal NPR seems to give Fox (there we go again) News a stamp of legitimacy that it does not deserve. Why Liasson wants to help them out in that or any other way is between her and her conscience--oh, except that NPR gets public money, if I'm not mistaken. Let's say that's none of my business either.
I don't even want to know what Fox pays her (or Juan Williams) to appear on The Fox News Show, if anything.
All I'm saying is that it looks like potential conflict of interest to me. Liasson's editors can't be unaware of that. Is it naive to be just surprised that they put her on the story? Either NPR is the most loosely-run organization since my wife and I coached kindergarten soccer, or NPR thinks nobody's going to notice, let alone call them on it.
To suggest that Liasson and NPR would never dream of allowing a conflict, and that we civilians should not worry our pretty little heads about things we as non-beltway insiders could not dream of understanding, because we're not Professional Journalists like O'Reilly and Beck fer cry-eye, is a mite condescending.
Nor can NPR hide behind an "everybody knows" defense: "Everybody knows" Liasson (and Juan Williams) appear on Fox more often than Law & Order reruns on every other channel. Everybody does not know that. A lot of my latte-sipping NPR friends don't even own a TV, and if they do they certainly never turn it on. (I have to sneak looks at Fox; my wife won't let me watch it.)
There ought to be some on-air acknowledgement. For full disclosure.
Of course, maybe this is just one small incident. And maybe it's not important; how could it be important? Multiply it, though, by whatever factor you wish:
Some people say that Fox is doing a lot of real damage to actual human beings (see: Sherrod, the war, etc.) and that Professional Journalists who seek our respect should not be so cozy with it. Some people say that too many beltway villager Professional Journalists are way too chummy with their sources and subjects, totally self-infatuated and self-righteous about their inflated sense of integrity, less self-aware of their biases and conflicts than a fish is of the water it swims in, and feel as entitled to their salaries and reputations as kittens take for granted their thrice-daily bowls of cream.
I'm not saying that, but some people do.
The idea that NPR should assign somebody with no imaginable conflict to cover stories about Fox, or that Liasson should choose between Fox or NPR is, of course, beyond insane.
(Full disclosure: I tweaked the header to change the word "on" to "about." Because it even crossed my mind to tell you this, my integrity takes my own breath away.)