Can Journalists Accept Endorsement Money?

ESPN SIDELINE REPORTER Erin Andrews recently signed a deal to be a spokesperson for Reebok. Is there anything wrong with that?

"Journalists can review products," media ethicist Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute told The Oregonian. "But they can't take money from a company to endorse them. That totally ruins their credibility."

ESPN responded by saying that if Andrews reports on sneakers, she'll reveal her connection to the brand.

Does disclosure and transparency resolve the credibility issue? Or is a sports journalist tainted by taking money from sports equipment makers?

Does the endorsement money change Andrews' role from being an objective journalist to being a sponsored celebrity?

LIVE TEAM COVERAGE: Snow!

IT SNOWED - A LOT - but does that make it news?

Most of the local newscasts have lead their broadcasts with weather stories for the past few days. Is the snow the biggest story in the region?

Or, is weather the greatest common denominator and thus likely to draw in the largest audience?

Do you actually want weather information (beyond forecasts) or do newscasts provide that information because weather is an emotional subject?

Do TV Journalists Have to be Attractive?

A MINNESOTA NEWS anchor received complaints about an outfit she wore while on air one evening.

Does it matter what the news people look like? Shouldn't viewers be focused on what the journalists say?

AOL reported on a new study that says "male viewers snap to attention at the sight of a female anchor they find attractive, but are distracted by her looks and therefore less likely to remember what she had to say."

Does being attractive help or hurt you as a broadcast journalist?

What Makes a Newspaper Good?

THE NEW YORK TIMES today reports that the Los Angeles Times is dropping in circulation faster than any other big city daily paper. And this comes as the LA Times is a leading candidate for a Pulitzer Prize, the highest honor in print journalism.

The LA Times also maintains 13 international bureaus and regional offices across the United States. They devote large chunks of the paper to long-form journalism.

By journalistic standards, the paper is doing well. So why aren't people in Los Angeles reading it?

What makes a newspaper - or any journalistic outlet - qualify as a success? Is it enough to do good work? What do you want from your journalistic outlets? What would make you read, listen or watch?

Do We Need Magazines Anymore?

DO MAGAZINES STILL have a place in the world?

The number of magazine retailers has decreased by more than 11 percent since 2007, according to Advertising Age.

They also reported: "Single-copy sales have been experiencing a long swoon, falling 5.6% in the first half of 2010 from the first half a year earlier, 9.1% in the second half of 2009, 12.4% in the previous six months and 11.1% and 6.3% in the halves before that, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations."

Does that mean that people don't read print magazines anymore? Do you?

Some of the problems can be attributed to the lackluster economy. Technology can be blamed for some of the declines. And greater diversity of information outlets is probably a huge culprit.

How about this: is there any need for an all-local Philly music mag? Would you read it? Would you pay for it?

How Should Journalists Handle Tragedies?

AS NEWS OF the shooting in Tuscon unfolded last week, journalists scrambled to get information to the public.

Early reports said that newly-elected Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was killed in the attack in which six people were murdered. Giffords, who was shot at close-range in the head, survived and continues to recover.

Many pundits and news outlets latched onto the idea that the shooting was politically motivated, specifically citing the political action committee (PAC) connected to Sarah Palin. The PAC's website showed targeted congressional districts and marked them with rifle crosshairs.

At this point, no one knows exactly why the shooter took such actions. The public, however, wants answers.

What should journalists do at this point? Should they try to piece together information and present what they have, even if it involves conjecture?

Or should the media stay quiet until there are facts to report? Is that even possible?

Should Food Critics Remain Anonymous?

A LOS ANGELES TIMES food critic walked into a new LA restaurant and was recognized by the restaurant's staff.

Then, the owner of the eatery snapped a photo of the critic (at right), kicked her out the restaurant and then posted her picture on the Internet for all to see.

"Our purpose for posting this is so that all restaurants can have a picture of her and make a decision as to whether or not they would like to serve her," the owner posted with the photo. "We find that some her reviews can be unnecessarily cruel and irrational, and that they have caused hard-working people in this industry to lose their jobs -- we don't feel that they should be blind-sided by someone with no understanding of what it takes to run or work in a restaurant."

Traditionally, critics have remained anonymous so that they are not provided special treatment at the restaurant. Is the anonymous critic the only way to get a fair look at the restaurant in question?

Or, is anonymity outdated in the age of the Internet, where anyone can post their own criticisms to places like Yelp or facebook?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)