MG it comes down to the level of the relationship. Sure, everyone has various types of relationships, but if you're more than just "friends," it needs to be disclosed as a standard practice. Better still, you should probably avoid writing about the company in the circumstance, because disclosure doesn't necessarily negate the conflict (call this the TechCrunch problem ;-) )
Kenny
· 1 year ago
If you still rocked the beard you would be "cultured", sin-beard....handsome. Doug agrees.
Lapp
· 1 year ago
I agree with the handsome, but it is most likely all in the glasses. And this is news to me about Leah??? Do tell matthew!
Jetson
· 1 year ago
I'm disappointed to read about this.
It doesn't come down to objectivity, it comes down to ethics. Without ethics, we can't trust your objectivity. If you were objective, you would have been objective and told your audience the score.
Vo Cation
· 1 year ago
MG:
Journalists--real ones, not bloggers--know that it is unethical to write about a company with which you have ANY sort of relationship.
The term of art is not financial, it's "remuneration."
You have a girlfriend who has a DIRECT financial relationship with the company you are writing about. Unless you are a sadist, or never want to get laid again, you would be thinking about it while covering it.
And the fact that most Valley reporters have some sort conflict doesn't make it OK for you to follow lock step with them.
It's one of the key teaching points for journalists. I mean real ones.
Chris Sacca
· 1 year ago
I am hereby disclosing that I am a reader of this blog. To be clear, I also read other blogs. I even write one from time to time.
That said, with my conflicts outed, I am glad someone in this Valley is getting laid... or at least being accused of getting laid.
MG Siegler
· 1 year ago
Thanks Chris. That's the comment I was looking for pretty much.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
MG:
Virtually every major newspaper's ethics policy forbids staff writers to make news decisions about companies in which they or their spouse have--direct or indirect--financial interest.
Furthermore, nearly every business publication stipulates that business writers should not invest in local businesses.
In other words: there is no interpretation on your blatant conflict. It is incumbent upon reporters (re: YOU) to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, regardless of whether an explicit ethics policy forbids or sanctions the activity.
The Reason: The public does NOT distinguish between the appearance of a conflict of interest and a real conflict of interest.
Had you been working for any mainstream publication, you would have been fired on the spot.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Finally, what this really speaks to, MG, is the quality of a reporter's judgment.
All Comments
it comes down to the level of the relationship. Sure, everyone has various types of relationships, but if you're more than just "friends," it needs to be disclosed as a standard practice. Better still, you should probably avoid writing about the company in the circumstance, because disclosure doesn't necessarily negate the conflict (call this the TechCrunch problem ;-) )
It doesn't come down to objectivity, it comes down to ethics. Without ethics, we can't trust your objectivity. If you were objective, you would have been objective and told your audience the score.
Journalists--real ones, not bloggers--know that it is unethical to write about a company with which you have ANY sort of relationship.
The term of art is not financial, it's "remuneration."
You have a girlfriend who has a DIRECT financial relationship with the company you are writing about. Unless you are a sadist, or never want to get laid again, you would be thinking about it while covering it.
And the fact that most Valley reporters have some sort conflict doesn't make it OK for you to follow lock step with them.
It's one of the key teaching points for journalists. I mean real ones.
That said, with my conflicts outed, I am glad someone in this Valley is getting laid... or at least being accused of getting laid.
Virtually every major newspaper's ethics policy forbids staff writers to make news decisions about companies in which they or their spouse have--direct or indirect--financial interest.
Furthermore, nearly every business publication stipulates that business writers should not invest in local businesses.
In other words: there is no interpretation on your blatant conflict. It is incumbent upon reporters (re: YOU) to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, regardless of whether an explicit ethics policy forbids or sanctions the activity.
The Reason: The public does NOT distinguish between the appearance of a conflict of interest and a real conflict of interest.
Had you been working for any mainstream publication, you would have been fired on the spot.
In this instance, yours failed.
Miserably.