I asked if his organization is funded by organizations critical of fossil fuels, or that have a particular stake in this debate. He said their sole funder is the New Venture Fund, a 501(c)3 public charity. A quick look at the board of directors for the New Venture Fund showed that it includes P.J. Simmons, the “co-founder and Chairman of the Corporate Eco Forum, a network of senior Global 500 executives focused on best practices in corporate sustainability strategies and execution.” He also “served twice as the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) Deputy Chair for Energy & Climate Change and directed the first CGI University climate program.”
I don’t mean to sound suspicious of Simmons, but this bears disclosing light of the fact that this Checks and Balances Project campaign happened to pick a critic of renewable energy as its poster boy. In fact, the campaign’s website has a page dedicated to Bryce, who it says “has been successful in hiding his ties to fossil fuel money from news outlets and their readers. This means that he is free to attack clean energy while readers are led to believe he is an unbiased source.”
Does the above information negate Elsner’s comments about not having a stance on energy policy this being about disclosure and not fossil fuels? In the spirit of his initiative, I leave that up to you to decide for yourself.
See how that works?
What matters is that my questions about funding and related items were an essential part of our interview. They also form an essential part of this column. Is the same true for opinion pieces published by news organizations?
Of course it is.
We should move to standardize the way contributors are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest and relevant related information. Once that information is provided, we should meet a higher standard of disclosing it to the public.
Times as a Target
Elnser and his colleagues may not know it, but their choice to focus first on the Times has some history behind it.
(Let me also pause and say that Brisbane is in no way able to require the paper’s op-ed section to adopt this proposal. He could choose to write about it. He could even endorse it. But it’s up to top editors at the paper to decide if they want to make it happen. I pointed this out to Elsner when I first met him a few weeks ago at the Online News Association conference.)
The first bit of relevant Times precedent relates to corrections. The reason that so many American newspapers publish corrections on page two is because the Times started doing it in the early 1970s. The media universe has greatly expanded since then, but the Times is still a paper that other news organizations look to as an example.
The second notable bit of Times history is that it instituted a similar questionnaire for its freelancers back in 2006. A memo sent to staffers in April of that year explained that writers “will be asked to fill out a questionnaire about their affiliations, work history, financial and personal connections and any past instances when questions were raised about the accuracy or originality of their work.”
Yes, that sounds very familiar. I don’t know if the paper uses the same or a similar questionnaire for its op-ed contributors. What is clear, however, is the bios appended to at least some of those contributors could benefit from increased disclosure. So, too, would the public.
One of the last questions I asked Elsner was what he thought the reaction would be for readers if they read the Bryce op-ed and also saw a note about the Manhattan Institute’s funders.
“Yeah, it’s a really good question about how readers would react to that,” he said. “I think the important thing is that readers would be provided a little bit more background, and hopefully [that] gets people to actually do their own research and look beyond just this one article or one opinion piece.”
Wow, another article about conflict of interests at the NY Times, another example and still no mention of Linda Greenhouse’s undisclosed conflict of interest in cases relating to military tribunals.
Imagine my surprise.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 6 Oct 2011 at 02:36 PM
As an organization that espouses transparent communications practices by companies and individuals speaking on behalf of causes or the organizations they represent, we support the notion of increased disclosure by opinion writers as to their affiliations, motivations and potential conflicts of interest.
The Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics (http://bit.ly/9VZZCQ) has a “Conflicts of Interest” clause, which states, in part, that public relations professionals and those speaking on behalf of organizations or causes should “Disclose promptly any existing or potential conflict of interest to affected clients or organizations.” The Code also states that these individuals should “Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.”
On that basis, we hope The Times will seriously consider this proposal for requiring increased transparency of its opinion writers as to their affiliations, motivations and interests represented.
What is ironic is that The New York Times has a standardized process in place for investigating potential conflicts of interest of letter to the editor writers. In a form letter that is sent to every letter writer whom The Times considers publishing, the paper asks the following questions (among others):
"Do you have a professional affiliation, or any other connection (including financial) that our readers should know about, that bears on the topic of your letter? (If you are writing in a private capacity and not on behalf of an organization, that will be considered in the decision on whether to use an ID.)"
"Did you write the letter in response to prompting from a Web site or anyone else?"
If The Times already has this potential conflicts of interest catcher in place for its letter writers, there is no reason why it cannot institute something similar for opinion authors.
Ultimately, for the organizations and individuals who wish to advocate for a cause, it is important that they be transparent in disclosing their motivations and funding. And it is equally important that The New York Times, and indeed, any publication, provides that information so that readers may better discern the true intent of an opinion writer and make their own informed decisions.
Keith Trivitt,
Associate Director,
Public Relations Society of America
#2 Posted by Keith Trivitt, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 12:17 PM
I'm surprised (am I naive?) that the NYtimes wasn't doing this already!
#3 Posted by Gzoref, CJR on Wed 12 Oct 2011 at 07:25 PM
It's "op-ed" for crying out loud.
The only people you'll read on the op-ed pages come there to grind their axes, and everybody knows it.
I think the eco-nuts just got pissed that some conservative saw some ink and they're doing everything they can do to stop it from happening again.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 13 Oct 2011 at 12:02 AM
The manhattan institute has an interesting history times readers should be interested in.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Oct 2011 at 11:08 AM
Transparency isn't just about money and envy-mongering. It's also about political affiliations. Jacob Weisberg, in the early Clinton years, called the relationship between journalists and the new administration 'Clincest', and it doesn't look as though much has changed. People on the Left narrowly define conflcts of interest in terms of financial conflicts of interest. The real world is a lot more complex, since people are also influenced by the desire for sex, social status, personal relationships, etc.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 13 Oct 2011 at 12:37 PM
yeah sure, Mark. The problem betwwen the press and the clintons is that they were just too friendly.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Oct 2011 at 03:35 PM
To Thimbles, compare and contrast the treatment of Bill Clinton to that of Clarence Thomas when it comes to sexual harassment. Thomas cannot be written of without Anita Hill being brought up no later than the 4th paragraph or so, whereas the name Juanita Brodderick is never mentioned in connection with the Big Guy. Chris Matthews did a gushing doc called 'The President of the World' about Clinton just a few months ago for MSNBC. The point about press coverage of Thomas is that it was universally hostile outside the right-wing media ghetto, whereas Clinton always had strong defenders in the MSM, who shifted much of the focus to Kenneth Starr.
Let's do a thought experiment, and give me an honest answer. If '60 Minutes', let us say, did a story on Clarence Thomas today, do you think that the name Anita Hill would go unmentioned? And if '60 Minutes' did a story on Bill Clinton today, the names of the any of the women who named Clinton as a sexual harasser would come up at all? The latter benefits from the same forgiveness syndrome in the establishment press that has benefitted Strauss-Kahn in France. Chappaquiddick was covered thoroughly too, and yet the truths the case revealed about Ted Kennedy's essential character did not affect the overall MSM coverage of 'the lion of the Senate' - it was isolated from his coverage, put in a box. Whereas any coverage of Thomas treats the Anita Hill case as essential to the man.
Bias is in the framing and story selection. Journalists complained about having to cover Clinton's various peccadillos, but leapt eagerly onto the Thomas 'story'.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 07:33 PM