Two-timing Times columnist

[matt_garth]

 

[Severian]

I wondered if Brooks & Shields would be "cancelled" one way or another. Shields got out clean with his retirement. But, looks like Brooks will be in some hot water.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Yeeeeeeeeeeesh...Times management

 

[goalmouth]

NYT can't hit its ass with both hands.

 

[Readallover]

Special treatment for special people. Brooks will get a pass just like Maureen did.

 

[jackfinarelli]

I guess I am missing something important here given the strong sentiments above. I do not view people who aspire to be "Weavers" as malefactors and I do not see how Brooks might have been intending to hide his affiliation since he wrote about the people and the idea behind the group at Aspen. He surely should have done his employer - the Times - the courtesy of informing them, but I don't see any monstrous breech of etiquette or ethics here.

Please explain...

 

[daemon]

I guess I am missing something important here given the strong sentiments above. I do not view people who aspire to be "Weavers" as malefactors and I do not see how Brooks might have been intending to hide his affiliation since he wrote about the people and the idea behind the group at Aspen. He surely should have done his employer - the Times - the courtesy of informing them, but I don't see any monstrous breech of etiquette or ethics here.

Please explain...

As a prominent columnist at the world's largest newspaper, Brooks is in a position to shape public opinion on whatever subject he chooses to write about. Amazon and Facebook are two of the most powerful and influential companies in the world. Doesn't it seem like a clear conflict of interest if Brooks is financially incentivized to avoid criticism of Facebook, Amazon, Zuckerberg, Bezos, the tech industry, etc.?

 

[garrow]

Bezos in Paradise: The New Media Elite and How They Got There

 

[matt_garth]

“Mainstream news organizations, including the Times, typically require their employees to recuse themselves from writing about or covering entities or people with whom they have a financial or personal connection. Financial reporters, for example, aren’t supposed to cover companies or businesses in which they’ve invested; doing so would probably raise suspicions among readers that the reporting was tainted by self-interest.

“When a conflict of interest is unavoidable, news organizations tend to disclose them in the course of their reporting or commentary. The basic obligation is to be “aboveboard” with readers so that they can fairly judge a journalist’s possible motivations and outside influences, said Patrick Lee Plaisance, the editor of the Journal of Media Ethics and a communications professor at Pennsylvania State University.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...93b798-7d06-11eb-a976-c028a4215c78_story.html

 

[dixiehack]

As a subscriber, I’m a little bit over the WaPo regularly doing stories about what’s up at the Times. There’s plenty else to do.

 

[Severian]

As a subscriber, I’m a little bit over the WaPo regularly doing stories about what’s up at the Times. There’s plenty else to do.

Media is a beat just like sports, politics, and local. And it's not just WaPo: CNN, NYT, WSJ, Huff Post, BuzzFeed, The Daily Beast and many others report on the comings and goings of other newsrooms.

 

[MileHigh]

NYT did a bit takeout last weekend on Marty Baron's retirement/revival of WaPo.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Paul Krugman has a full time gig as an economics professor. But everybody knows it. Hell, that's why the Times hired him. It's the fact Brooks did not disclose this arrangement to his readers that makes it hinky. If they knew his connections to Amazon and Facebook, they could judge his work accordingly.

 

[jackfinarelli]

OK. I think I get it here - - but I have to say that I do not find Brooks' "breech of trust" to be even marginally significant.

Thanks for the explanations but I am not nearly in the same high dudgeon that others are here. For me, there are much bigger problems in the country and in the media organizations to focus on in 2021.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

There’s a significant update regarding Brooks’ hidden conflicts of interest.

 

[Danwriter]

OK. I think I get it here - - but I have to say that I do not find Brooks' "breech of trust" to be even marginally significant.

But Fox News and the NY Post will. Perhaps not on this particular situation, but this scenario is the type they pounce on, producing the hed (which is all their readers/viewers see anyway): "NYTimes Columnist Shills For Jeff B On The Side."

 

[jackfinarelli]

Danwriter: I agree that FOX will pounce on this and try to make it something egregious. Personally, I think this is bigger than a tempest in a teapot - - but not a whole lot bigger. This is like a Category 1 hurricane that never makes landfall anywhere...

 

[goalmouth]

But news orgs still OK with journos witholding reporting for book deals. Pathetic.

 

[Danwriter]

Danwriter: I agree that FOS will pounce on this and try to make it something egregious. Personally, I think this is bigger than a tempest in a teapot - - but a whole lot bigger. This is like a Category 1 hurricane that never makes landfall anywhere...

Let's see if Judy Woodruff brings it up with Brooks. On air. Speaking of air: not holding breath.

 

[Vombatus]

His rocking back and forth makes me think something is wrong with him.