-
IN DENIAL II: Hmmm. The New York Times runs a big story on the journalistic friends of Conrad Black, media mogul in ethical rapids. They detail how some leading conservatives have been paid handsomely on Black's "advisory boards" while not disclosing their payments. Who does that remind you of? Two years ago, it was revealed that Enron - yes, Enron - had been lavishing huge sums on friendly journalists, including the New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman.
Enron never gave any money to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. They gave money to academic and occasional freelance writer Paul Krugman before he worked at the New York Times. Krugman disclosed his financial connection when he wrote about Enron (Favorably) for Fortune magazine, and he disclosed it yet again - though it was a past relationship - when he began writing about Enron (very negatively) in his capacity as an NYT columnist.
-
The NYT - despite devoting enormous resources to the Enron story - deliberately ignored the journalism angle. Krugman still hasn't disclosed the tens of thousands of thinly-veiled bribes he got from Enron, while he postures absurdly as a foe of the powerful.
He then subsequently disclosed the precise nature of the relationship - money paid and what it was paid for. Maybe Andy has invented a new definition for "disclosed" which means "give it to Andy Sullivan" or something, but otherwise...
Andy continues to mention this story despite ignoring all the Enron money which was given to people like Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, and who knows who else that we haven't heard about. Krugman's crime appears to be receiving money, disclosing it, disclosing it further, all the while writing very negatively about them. How corrupt!
Besides, as Tbogg reminds us, the very idea of Andy writing about anyone's financial conflicts of interests (or journalistic lapses of any kind), is laughable:
-
Andrew Sullivan's latest controversy began Tuesday, when the New York Times published an article on the recent phenomenon of online "me-zines" -- scrappy, self-produced, sometimes stream-of-consciousness commentaries by celebrity intellectuals. But Sullivan's attempt to achieve what has eluded most online journalism ventures -- make his Web site self-sustaining, maybe even make a profit -- landed him in new trouble with his critics this week, after the story matter-of-factly reported that Sullivan had signed up his first corporate sponsor: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
PhRMA is the association that looks out for the interests of industry giants like Pfizer and Merck on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. What the Times failed to report is that Sullivan has used his own Web site, as well as his posts at the New York Times Magazine and the New Republic to repeatedly -- and controversially - defend the pharmaceutical industry against criticism over its role in the global AIDS pandemic.
The controversy over Sullivan's site sponsor was short-lived: After reporters from Salon and other news organizations made calls to Sullivan's editors, as well as to journalism experts, about the ethics of a journalist being personally sponsored by an industry he frequently defends, Sullivan announced he would return the $7,500 annual sponsorship. But the larger question raised by the flap isn't likely to go away: How can a one-person "me-zine" develop ethical standards that allow it to accept the kind of advertising and sponsorships that go to corporate media monoliths, without the conflict of interest taint that naturally goes along with a journalist getting the personal backing of a controversial patron?