Personal Blogs and Interest Conflicts

What limits, if any, should be placed on a journalist who blogs on his/her own personal site? That's the question The Washington Times is pondering this morning.

According to Edward Wasserman, professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., journalists who blog on their own personal sites are “asking for trouble not to anticipate the future they're going to run into.” He's concerned that these personal blogs could create conflicts of interest that come back to bite them later. The example he cites is a reporter who covers real estate writes in a blog about his personal feelings on the Iraq war. There's no conflict here, right? Ok so what if one of the reporter's sources reads the blog, is offended, and so no longer comments for real estate stories because of the blog entries? Then there's an issue.

The same could be said for the 300 plus PR professionals who blog. I have both praised and criticized companies here in the past. I think it's part of what makes my blog compelling. I call it as I see it. That may be well and good but what if one day these same companies comes calling on my employer for PR support and they discover these criticisms? The questions posed by the Washington Times story not only relate to journalists but to anyone who maintains a weblog. The answers are murky. Maintaining an interesting blog and tip-toeing around future potential conflicts of interest might lie at opposite sides of the spectrum.

Comments

[David Burn]

Right. I mean, what client in their right mind wants a well-informed, outspoken servant with their finger on the pulse?

On the high side, perhaps these criticism-filled blogs can act as a screen for clients we don't want.

[Stuart Bruce, BMA PR]

I'm not convinced there is a great deal of difference between blogs and the 'real' world. Ten years ago the question might have been about a letter to a newspaper expressing your opinion. Thirty years ago it would have been speaking a public meeting - something that lots of journalists have always done. The only real difference is that blogs are easier to find and potentially last longer.

[Phil Gomes]

True, yeah, but I predict that there will also be a few "only-Nixon-could-go-to-China" plays, where the blogger critical of a product, service, or idea is hired to fix what ails 'em. "Hell," they might say. "He's gone *this* far."

[Mike Driehorst]

I think journalists run into a greater problem than those in PR. Heck, journalists are not supposed to -- publicly -- have opinions. In PR, we're not supposed to be credible, right? ;)

Generally, journalists can separate themselves from the story they cover. Even without blogs, journalists have opinions, feelings, and biases. But, the good ones report the facts fairly.

So, let journalists blog. It gives us in PR better insight into how to pitch and relate with them.
Mike

[Steve Bryant]

As a journalist, I believe that any reporter who also blogs significantly increases his or her chances of creating a conflict of interest.

Despite the starry-eyed ideals they teach in journalism school, every reporter has opinions on what they cover. Before blogs came along, those opinions were simply less publicized.

Media outlets are wrestling with how to use blogs. But the underlying struggle is with the ideal of objectivity, which has been eroded, in part, by the realities of mass online publishing.

[Usher Lieberman]

If the prospective clients don't want you as their agency because you've criticized them in the past, you probably don't want them as your client anyway because they haven't reached the point where they're ready to accept criticism. Hopefully we're always in a position to turn down clients that don't fit our cultures. Phil's Nixon going to China is an apt analogy here.

[scott]

Interesting post and discussion as well. I feel for journalists because of the objectivity issue; it's similar to journalists not being allowed to participate in political rallies, etc. I'll be curious to see how it all shakes out.

As for PR people, we have it easier -- but there is still risk in being opinionated. If I were 26, broke and trying to find my first job in PR, as I was in 1992, I don't think I'd want to risk that someone wouldn't hire me because they didn't like something I wrote on my blog. Today, with a resume and a measure of financial security, I'm willing to lay it all out there because I only want to work for companies that are OK with me being me.

Steve, you must have wondered whether you made a good decision in publicly endorsing Kerry for president in 2004, right? Did you get much flack for that? (Probably helps that you're in NY and not in Texas...)

[Jim]

Whenever one chooses to express one's opinion, one risks offending someone. That is the nature of having an opinion and of choosing to publish those opinions so widely. My blog is a real estate blog( hence my response), and this risk is one that I was willing to take. I have not (yet) spoken to international politics, nor do I intend to do so, but I accept the risks that my occasionally strong opinions may offend some. So far, most have been able to have intelligent discourse rather than make emotional decisions to abandon commenting (not that I have that many regulars anyway).

[Jeff the Poustman]

The illusion of objectivity is the thing most threatened. Each of us are ourselves, all the time. Conflicts of interest are unavoidable. Blogging is just another means to make denying this more difficult.