Journalists Faced With Advertiser Conflict of Interest

As Black Friday nears, the Nieman Journalism Lab discussed possible issues that modern journalists face when writing articles that may involve possible advertisers that work with their publication. The main concern: do you avoid any writing that could shine a negative light on these advertisers OR do you risk the possibility of losing money for your publication/risk getting fired for doing so?

Caroline O'Donavan writes about a Buzzfeed staffer who claims he was recently fired for articles criticizing Axe and other big funders of the Website. In his words:

Ben Smith made me delete a post I did on Axe Body Spray’s ads, titled, “The Objectification Of Women By Axe Continues Unabated in 2013″ (it was initially called something to the effect of “Axe Body Spray Continues its Contribution to Rape Culture,” but I quickly softened it). Get this: he made me delete it one month after it was posted, due to apparent pressure from Axe’s owner Unilever. How that’s for editorial integrity?

Understanding that no online news outlets are immune to pressure from advertisers, would you avoid risky topics dealing with a company if there could be repercussions for yourself or your publication? Or would you write the piece anyway?

How Journalists are Dealing with Redskins Controversy

As I am sure you all know by now, the Washington Redskins have been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons thus far this season. While their play on the field has been less than inspiring, to say the least, they've created the most headlines for their steadfast refusal to change their team name. Consequently, since the name is essentially a racial slur, many people would like to see them change their name; including the likes of many prominent sports journalists and personalities such as Bill Simmons, Peter King, and the immortal Mike Francesa. In fact, in their articles, Simmons and King have boycotted the term "Redskins" and only refer to the team as "Washington" or the "Washington Football Team".

So I guess my question is: With the growing resentment toward the team name by the public and the increasing amount of journalists speaking out against the name and even boycotting it, do you believe Daniel Snyder will eventually cave and change the name due to media scrutiny and all the negative coverage this whole incident is causing? Also, is it appropriate for journalists to get involved in issues like this or would you prefer the sports media to lay low on these issues and focus strictly on sports?  Or do you enjoy the movement many journalists are making against this particular issue?

Should a newspaper sue the federal government for taking a reporter's notes?

The Washington Times is suing the Department of Homeland Security after the department seized a reporter's notes, the newspaper reported. Agents from DHS took journalist Audrey Hudson's notes while looking for firearms, according to The Daily Caller.

The Washington Times:

The newspaper alleged that federal agents accompanying Maryland State Police on the raid took materials from Ms. Hudson’s office that were not covered by the search warrant that authorized the collection solely of evidence about guns and a potato launcher allegedly possessed by her husband, Paul Flanagan.

The filing asks a federal judge to order the return of “property that has been unlawfully seized … in violation of the Fourth and First Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

Should the federal government be allowed to seize a reporter's notes? 

Is the Washington Times right for suing over this issue?

Would you publish mugshots related to a drug investigation at the risk of your publication being seen as racist?

The Chattanooga Times Free Press has received criticism after it ran a front page story showing the mugshots of 32 men that were arrested in an investigation of the city’s crack trade. All of the suspects were black and described by police as the “worst of the worst.” The paper got feedback describing its coverage as racist and irresponsible.

There was disagreement inside the newsroom over whether or not to run the mugshots at all or to put them inside the paper so fewer people would see them. The use of the 32 mugshots got more attention (even if a lot of it was negative) than previous coverage of the investigation that appeared about a week earlier without the photos. 

Would you have run the mugshots on the front page?

Does reporting the truth outweigh public backlash over how a publication presents the news?

Should reporter have been fired for comparing a high school to "Mean Girls"?

According to Poynter, North Adams Transcript reporter Isaac Avilucea was fired for his October 18th story, where he included an interview from a girl who said she had transfered to her new school because her old one was like "the movie 'Mean Girls.' " She also commented how she made the move even though her new school has "somewhat inferior academics and athletics"(Poynter).  The paper received a lot of backlash from the schools. See story

Avilucea responded to his termination by writing an article titled, "I Got Fired For Being A Journalist."

one-that-fired-him/

However, Avilucea was just hired at a sister paper. 

The case involves a few major questions:

1) Do you think Avilucea was wrong in reporting the high schooler's opinions of the schools and should he have been fired? Was he practicing fair reporting?

2) Should the sister paper have hired him?

Restrictions on the Press in the White House

There is a growing battle between the White House press corps and the administration, and it reached a peak during the daily media briefing on Thursday. It stems from the Obama administration's official photographers and videographer releasing photos and videos from events where only they had access, while press photographers are being barred from covering the President.

Here are some highlights from the fight featured in the AP and Politico:

And the press access precedent being set by this WH press office will only be followed in a more rigid way by next POTUS. why we whine
— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) November 21, 2013

"It is the responsibility of those of who who sit in your seats to push for more. You're supposed to be agitating for more access. If you weren't, you wouldn't be doing your job." - White House Deputy Secretary Josh Earnest

"As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist's camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government." - Letter from the White House Correspondents Association to Earnest

"The press corps don't break much news these days, I'm sure they are resentful. When they had a monopoly on communications technology, I'm sure they found folks needing them more, giving them more. But their current colleagues who actually report seem to be doing fine, so maybe big media should stop pretending [the White House] beat is this plum assignment in the Internet age." - Arun Chaudhary, First Official White House videographer

So where do you stand in this debate?