Is Canzano being unethical?

Quoting oneself from another thread seems as loopy as the "Rickey Henderson" third-person thing. But in this case I'll make an exception. Bet the sports editors in these cases would have no problem kicking a story back at a Post beat guy and ordering him to do more reporting. Or telling an Oregonian hoops writer that he absolutely will not take checks from a Paul Allen radio station. But they go ostrich when it is one of their so-called big guns.

 

Some papers run pin-up girls on Page 3. If they don't have a problem with this, why should we?
Peter McGowan doesn't have a problem with Barry Bonds, why should we?
The folks who invited Dr. Kevorkian into their homes didn't have a problem with it, why should we?

Jersey_Guy is right, Mizzou. You are embarassing yourself.

 

I'm with Mizzou, fuck a bunch of the navel gazing Poynter police.
Paul Allen may own the radio station, but he doesn't have daily oversight. It is just one part of a huge portfolio. So the writer isn't getting paid directly by the owner, he is getting paid by a company. You can find thousands and thousands of examples of media employees who get a check from a company that also owns a sports franchise.
This whole thing smells like an alt-weekly trying to make something into a big deal.
And the deputized Poynter police are already on patrol here making it sound like Allen, who's so rich he barely makes the games, is going to be personally giving Canzano a check every Friday.

 

Mr Farrar,

Flexibility is an asset in gymnastics not ethics.

Slippery slopes are for slalom courses not career choices.

Yes, there might be promotional benefit for Canzano's paper equal to the extra cash in his pocket. But it's still a can of worms that's best left unopened. Maybe he's above being influenced--I don't doubt it--but even if he was up for sj-sainthood that doesn't stop others (readers) from suspecting that he's bought and paid for by the Blazers owner. That's the problem. And it would be a firing offence in any other department.

YHS, etc

 

So should the guy from FAIR not being a media criticism show on Fox News?
Or should reporters from the Times or Post not be making appearances or hosting network or cable shows?
It is far from a firing offense, at larger papers it is encouraged and in some cases required to do cross-promotion.
Again, and in this case, Allen is so far removed from the process to say that Canzano is going to go easy, is insane given the past history. The Blazers convinced the Oregonian to hire an outside consultant to review Canzano's work for fairness since he had been so harsh in the past.
This argument would have been better served 70 years ago when the first print reporter went on radio or 60 years ago when they did TV.
Now, it is just silly.

 

I'm with Jay and Mizzou on this one.

People are making it sound like Paul Allen hired Canzano himself. Most columnists have radio shows and it's a pretty good bet that most of those stations air games of the teams in that area.

There are a lot of people on this site who have never achieved anything in this business and take everything they read on Poynter and Romenesko as gospel.

Those people are fools.

 

My understanding is that the issue here is not that the station airs Blazers games, it's that the Blazers' owner owns the station and will, for all intents and purposes, be signing Canzano's checks. So this is not like those other instances to which you referred.

Or am I reading this wrong?

 

"John Canzano is a lightning-rod for controversy and nobody knows that better than we do. With that being said, we feel confident about the direction of our organization and the new chapter of the team. Portland sports fans are passionate about the Trail Blazers and passionate about John's opinions. ... While we may not always agree with what John might say, this new partnership will add an unprecedented level of transparency."

--Mike Golub, Blazers exec. vice president

Just throwing it out there. . .

 

Careful, Mizzou.
Tom Petty is on the prowl.

 

The bitterness toward the "Poynter Police" Jay, Mizz and SEC seem to share is, I guess, understandable. A correlation, it seems to me, is to the so-called "PC Police" who water down true thought and make us scared to say anything out loud.

That being said, I totally disagree with what they're saying, and not because I read Romanesko or "have never acheived anything in this business" and wish to tear down someone who has.

The main reason I have a problem with Canzano's deal is because of the simple tenet of ethics I learned when I first got into the business: If it looks like a a conflict of interest, treat it as such, no matter what kind of justification you come up with it.

Perhaps those who taught me this fine art of journalism (no, I didn't go to a J-school) were wrong, and in this day and age, exceptions can be made. I think if we did take ethical dilemmas on a case-by-case basis, based on the parties involved, this one might pass the litmus test. After all, like I said before on this thread and will expand on now, as far as sports columnists go, Canzano strikes me, a casual reader, as one of the more ethically-sound, "fuck-the-man," shit-stirrers out there. He lives to go after authority and calls the most powerful folks in his market out on a regular basis. He's firm, fair, and most of all, a damn good writer.

Which is why this whole flap is, above all, surprising. Having read him for some time, when Canzano says "I will not change my stances or water down my opinions based on who is writing my check (paraphrasing)," I believe him without a second thought, because, call me crazy, I trust the guy.

But that's not the point. When it comes to ethical issues, unfortunately, "just trusting the guy" isn't enough. Ethical situations are the only time the slippery-slope fallacy, I believe, is not only a valid argument, it's the only argument.

I'll still read Canzano. If he puts up a Podcast of his show, I might catch it now and then. My opinion of him as a great columnist won't change, but the mystique he's rightly earned in my eyes, I must admit, is somewhat tarnished.

 

My question is why are some so concerned with appearance?
Appearance, to me, is a matter of perception and we have zero control of how things are perceived, so why is the appearance of a conflict of interest so important?
One person's conflict is another person's sound business deal.
The problem is that a bunch of self-annointed ethicists jump all over some guy when he made it clear that he was "NOT" an employee of the radio station.
I would imagine he is a self-employed contracter.
I guess it just bothers that others have a problem.
When this guy's paper, a highly regarded one at that, doesn't have a problem with the arrangement. Canzano, who is also highly regarded, worked to eliminate any possible problems.
I just don't think I should sit in judgment of this situation when I don't know all the details, and, on top of that, those who had the power to say no, didn't.