Gawker scoops that The New York Times has finally given its Sunday Business columnist Ben Stein the ol’ heave-ho, after an incredibly dumb ethical lapse last month.
Reuters’ Felix Salmon, a longtime Stein foe, was the first to point out that the actor/columnist/emcee/Nixon speechwriter/”Bueller… Bueller” guy had sold out to a company called freescore.com, appearing in TV ads promoting the morally dubious service.
Gawker quotes Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis (who wouldn’t return my requests for comment a few weeks ago—thanks, Catherine! Have fun with your new job flacking those other hard-to-defend credit-rating firms) saying “Ben didn’t understand when he signed on with FreeScore that this might pose a potential conflict for him as a contributing columnist for the Times, because he hadn’t written about credit scores or this company. But, we decided that being a commercial spokesman for FreeScore while writing his column wouldn’t be appropriate.”
The Times clearly made the right call here, if it did take them a bit too long (at least three weeks) to pull the trigger.
First, it’s a point-blank breach of the Times’s own code of conduct, not to mention common-sense journalism standards.
Second, Stein was shilling for a company that tricks consumers into paying money they don’t need to pay for a service they don’t need to have. The new credit-card bill regulates this stuff, requiring these companies to say that the only place to get a really free report is at AnnualCreditReport.com.
Good riddance, Ben. Take a victory lap, Felix.
Now the question is: Who will get his plum Sunday business column in the NYT?
Ben is too good for the trashy liberal toilet paper they are. In fact when you are done with the NYT we still have to clean not only our hand, but our minds as well.
#1 Posted by Dha, CJR on Sat 8 Aug 2009 at 06:39 PM
Finally! Finally! I'm only sad it was for the wrong reasons. But then again, there's so many reasons to cast Mr. Stein into the hell of irrelevance. This guy was such an endless shill for anyone in power, his sole concern being "in" with the movers and shakers that he was a total disservice to the genre of financial media entirely. It was an infuriating process just to witness his repeated prayer and submission to the idea that there was no economic crisis in the form of sneering and belittling people who called this Depression (and it is) right on target.
#2 Posted by hidflect, CJR on Sat 8 Aug 2009 at 11:50 PM
Finally canned the homophobe!
#3 Posted by Jay, CJR on Sun 9 Aug 2009 at 12:15 AM
ummm.... he believes in intelligent design...he thinks Jesus rode a raptor to school and Mary used a pterodactyl to knit... i say good riddance...and i am an open minded Catholic
#4 Posted by niko, CJR on Sun 9 Aug 2009 at 02:58 AM
But when will Sunday Morning follow suit?
#5 Posted by Joe, CJR on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 05:00 PM
But when will Sunday Morning follow suit?
#6 Posted by Joe, CJR on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 05:01 PM
Compare and contrast.
CJR jumps all over Ben Stein, supposedly for an undisclosed conflict of interest. Stein gets fired and CJR is smugly satisfied.
Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post writes an article arguing for Roman Polanski’s freedom. In the article she failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed.
Another undisclosed conflict of interest to be sure, which leaves the question: how long till CJR jumps all over Applebaum?
I wont hold my breath.
#7 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 28 Sep 2009 at 06:00 PM
Mike H.,
Rememebr their financial savior is: Victor Navsky, who used to edit the Nation.
Even though he is the chairman of CJR and claims "No influence," Look at two things:
1) How many critical stories have their been of American Prospect, Daily Kos, Huffington post, The Nation and New Republic? Hint: NONE.
2) How many Nation events does navsky go to (the next is a fundraising event on a cruise ship later this year) even though he is on the masthead of CJR?
I've let Kurtz and Breitbart know. Time to inform the Right Blogosphere soon.
Navsky must choose.
#8 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 28 Sep 2009 at 07:55 PM
JSF: as another one of Navsky's toys to publish his special brand of revisionism (both past and present) the editors and contributors here have been selected for their own hip new brand of “no enemies to the left”.
But the question remains, when will the hypocrite Ryan Chittum call for Anne Applebaum’s head for her undisclosed COI?
#9 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 30 Sep 2009 at 07:58 PM
Mike H, buddy--I cover the business press and sometimes wander into business of journalism issues. Last time I checked, Anne Applebaum was not a business journalist and Polanski was not a business issue.
But thanks for your interest.
#10 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 30 Sep 2009 at 10:22 PM
OK, Ryan, so when do they can Paul Krugman for a conflict of interest in lambasting Bush's people during the Enron scandal, while having himself been paid $50K by Enron in consulting fees? Some of the celebrants above suggest (unintentionally), Stein was ousted because of his politics, and the Times, given the editorial obsessions of its current zealous, practically brainless publisher-heir, is always going to be under suspicion of this.
Nice try excusing Anne Applebaum, whom I usually admire, by the way. There are more conflicts of interest than just financial ones. The pretzel logic used by conventional journalists to excuse their favored politicians, journalists, and pop-cultural figures is always a source of entertainment.
#11 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 1 Oct 2009 at 12:37 PM
Mark,
Let's see, Enron was, what, eight years ago now? Got anything better than that?
The last time this was brought up, oddly enough on a Ben Stein post, I wrote this in comments:
"Krugman worked for Enron before he was a columnist for the Times. He quit that when he signed up with the paper. As far as I can tell, he disclosed his prior relationship when it came up in his columns. I've got no problem with that.
Also, I'm more than happy to call Krugman out for misleading (or "selective citing"), as I did three weeks ago here.
As I say to all readers, if you see something--good or bad--that needs to be spotlighted, lemme know. You see Krugman fudging, drop me a line."
And I in no way excused Anne Applebaum or Roman Polanski (if you really must know my personal opinion on him, go here). To repeat the above: This is a business-journalism site. Anne Applebaum is not a business journalist. Roman Polanski is not a business-journalism issue. Thus, no Audit.
Don't know how to make that clearer.
#12 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 1 Oct 2009 at 01:32 PM
Ryan, good, if lawyerly, response. Points taken.
#13 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 2 Oct 2009 at 12:12 PM
I read this article because I saw Ben Stein's name was mentioned in it. But can someone tell me, what is the NY Times? Is that a publication or something?
#14 Posted by Twitterdeedee, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 11:58 AM
I read this article because I saw Ben Stein's name was mentioned in it. But can someone tell me, what is the NY Times? Is that a publication or something?
#15 Posted by Twitterdeedee, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 12:01 PM
I read this article because I saw Ben Stein's name was mentioned in it. But can someone tell me, what is the NY Times? Is that a publication or something?
#16 Posted by Twitterdeedee, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 12:05 PM
I read this article because I saw Ben Stein's name was mentioned in it. But can someone tell me, what is the NY Times? Is that a publication or something?
#17 Posted by Twiter-deedee, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 12:09 PM