| ||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think News People Politics2000  Technology- Free Software Project Travel & Food  Columnists
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - View From the Top - - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon Technology stories, go to the
Technology home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Salon Columnists - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon Technology Silicon Follies Silicon Follies 21st Challenge Complete archives for Technology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
More on "deep links," journalists and IPOs | page 1, 2
With the Universal dispute -- in which the movie studio demanded that a Web site operator stop linking to its movie trailers -- the case is complicated by the nature of the files involved. Serving video files is an expensive proposition. What apparently irked Universal was the way the site linked directly to the trailers' multimedia files; the studio wanted the links to point instead to the Web pages on which it housed those trailers -- along with accompanying credits and supporting ads. That's the way this conflict was resolved. What I wonder is whether Universal might have achieved exactly the same result by making a few phone calls rather than resorting to legal threats. After all, good will is part of what makes the Web go 'round. Which is why several readers suggested boycotts or other public pillorying of companies that go after "deep linkers." As Malcolm Slaney wrote, "One way to fight the people who don't want deep linking is to not link to them at all." Journalists and IPOs, redux My column on the ruckus stirred up by San Jose Mercury News columnist Chris Nolan's dabbling in IPO investing evoked an avalanche of reader response that fell neatly into two camps. One group of correspondents -- mostly journalists who work for financial news sites like TheStreet.com or other news outlets -- chastised me for what they perceived as an attempt to exonerate Nolan, who, they feel, got what she deserved. Another group -- also journalists, some from Nolan's own paper -- applauded me for what they saw as my justified criticism of institutionalized hypocrisy in the newsroom, where rank- I thought my original column was pretty clear, but I will happily reiterate: From where I sit, it looks like both Nolan and the Mercury News mishandled the situation. Of course it is a bad idea for journalists to write about companies they invest in, or to invest in companies that they cover. But it's silly to maintain that this isn't a complex situation with no gray areas. In Nolan's case, the gray areas include the reporter's notification of her editors about her stock trade and her assignment to write a freelance article about it for Fortune magazine. (Should Fortune never have assigned such a piece? Is first-person journalism about financial topics off-limits except for people who are not professional writers?) These issues don't make what Nolan did right, but they ought to give anyone pause before passing a definitive judgment on these events. If I've learned one thing in 20 years in journalism it's that anyone who claims that a story is black- For those journalists whose e-mails declared that my piece was "drivel" and that there is only one side to this story, I have a few more questions: If reporters, editors and columnists need to restrict or disclose their investments in areas they cover (as I think they should), what should be the rules for top media executives whose decisions have far more impact on what news readers receive every day? Why all this pent-up ire for the lapse of one person? And what would be the ethical way for a journalist to write a first-person story about IPO investing, anyway? Wasn't the time to stop Nolan from making her mistake when she informed her editors of her plans? Why did the Mercury News only discipline her after the Wall Street Journal published an item about her stock deal? Could it be that the paper was more concerned about avoiding bad PR than enforcing spotless ethics? I don't have answers here -- but these are the questions that interest me. Conflicts of interest are most dangerous when they're least obvious. We can all get off on telling the world how spotless we are in comparison to Nolan -- or we can begin to grapple with the much thornier dilemmas confronting every journalist every day.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer Sound off Related Salon stories New ethics for the new economy? Technology journalists aren't supposed to own stock in the companies they cover. But to participate in the high-flying tech sector, some are writing a new definition of "conflict of interest." Should journalists and IPOs mix? A San Jose Mercury News columnist's suspension reveals less about ethics than about the newsroom's changing balance of power.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
