Without the Chronicle's dynamic reporting duo, the Bay Area air district would not be getting back its $75,000, money that could help cities expand bike paths or plant more trees.
That's proof enough for me that we can start the disclosure on these speaking engagements right here and now.
Full Story »
Journalist taking fees from anyone beyond reimbursement for speaking has long been a no no. Friedman should have known better.
One of the fuzzy lines has always been whether it was OK to take money from a potential interest or whether it was OK as long as you disclosed it. In practice it is left up to the individual employer, and journalist. We will never be able to fully stop payola, but without full disclosure we can't tell of potential bias.
A short on the NYtimes and T. L. Friedman's $ 's for speaking ...interesting due to the refund. Watchdog journalism is so satisfying when it forces good behavior.
I wonder what is wrong with the people in CA to hire that , 'if it exportS jobs it's good(code word GLOBALIZATION)' , crook.
The writing's good, the analysis seems objective, and there's nothing wrong with letting folks know that some folks are watching...
I'd put this article more in the novelty category, and while I don't necessarily begrudge Mr. Friedman his speaking fees, I like the idea that someone is watch-dogging the media's glitterati.
Retrieving Comments
