Update on "Journalist" Taking Government Pay

AP: Boston Herald Fires Writer Aiding Governor. The Boston Herald on Friday fired a columnist who signed a contract worth up to $10,000 to help Gov. Mitt Romney's administration promote its environmental policies. Herald Publisher Patrick Purcell initially said the paper would continue Charles Chieppo's weekly column, a day after he began working for the governor's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

Two things here. First, the Herald's initial response was shameful. This guy should have been shown the door the second his government payoff became known.

Second, the conservative wing of the blogosphere has been all too silent to the poisoning of journalistic integrity represented by this example and others like it. (There are exceptions, I'm glad to say.)

We're seeing a pretty disturbing trend here. And people of honor in the journalism community -- amateur or pro and no matter what their politics -- should be on the case.

Comments

[adamsj]

On reading this ite, Dan, I thought back to this Jay Rosen post. I see, in all the long discussion, one right-winger whose answer to Jay's question, "Instead of the White House Press, You Envision What?" is something other than "Screw the press, who needs 'em?" I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm afraid you're presuming on a civility and a commitment to democracy that is--how shall I put this?--inoperative.

[Andrew Lark]

If Purcell was reporting on the people or organizations paying him to also craft op-eds and assist in other writing then there clearly is a massive conflict of interest. A bit like an industry analyst being paid for consulting by a company and then writing independent reports on that company and the industry. But what you and Malkin get at his a deeper issue - the issue of the Government subsidizing journalists that are aligned with them.

This needs to stop if the media - the whole media - are to retain credibility. And the same standards need to be extended to the world of analysts. The same rule applies whether it is a corporate or government subsidy.

What you are also pointing to is the difference between transparency and opacity. Behavior like this drives opacity - bad! - even when disclosing the details in advance with the intent of being transparent and ethical.

[Joe I.]

Dan,

This is the risk of paying bloggers. That they become no more than political hacks not just producing biased stories but becoming the only "journalists" politicians will talk with and there for the editorial filters of the real journalism is gone. It happens in entertainment news when the only people the stars talk to are the people employed by the distributors of the movie they appear in. What about politicians only talking to are those that boost their political view or policy initiative. One thing the conservatives have going for them is they have figured this out for good or bad. The left still believes that the news will filter out the truth. How wrong can they be. Just look at the last election.

[Jozef Imrich]

Dan, you are making a difference in many different ways:

Nothing is as it seems in the blogosphere so I am not surprised that this link is on a radar everywhere!

Memeorandum is tracing bloggers' reactions to Charles Chieppo's story and so is Google in the newspaper context Google: Charles Chieppo Taking Government Pay

By the way: There is more and more evidence that the web is more than technology ... as Jack Shaffer points out, in his cheekiest of ways, 'What Can Bloggers Do That Reporters Can't?' Let them speak for themselves ... ; Elsewhere: links to Jack Shafer's essay in Slate about the comparative advantage of bloggers vs. journalists