Conflicts on the other side of the table

I came across a really great discussion about conflicts of interest in the Columbia Journalism Review this week. The subject was the focal point of an article written by Emily Brill about journalists’ responsibilities in reporting on big tech companies.

On August 9, Google and Verizon announced an alliance in which Google, which Brill accurately dubbed “the champion of the free, open Internet,” would partially bow to Verizon’s long-held stance that distributors of bandwidth-intensive content should pay to get priority when using Verizon’s Internet network.

Newsweek responded with a quick Q&A on its website with Harvard professor and net-neutrality champion Jonathan Zittrain. Brill described him as a “kind of academic messiah of ‘network neutrality;’” the man has for years argued that all Internet content should be treated equally in terms of access.

So when Newsweek asked Zittrain if Google had sold it, anyone familiar with the professor’s work would have been surprised to find him maintaining a decidedly diplomatic stance:

I wouldn’t expect Google to do much more than represent its own interests—which may overlap with that of the average Internet user, but not always. So I’d take both Google and Verizon at their word that they offer the framework as a suggestion, and then it’s up to the public—and its elected representatives—to decide what to do with the proposal.

What Newsweek didn’t tell its readers is that Google is the biggest corporate donor to Harvard’s Berkman Center, of which Zittrain is a co-director. The tech company has donated roughly $500,000 in the past two years, part of the 10 percent of Berkman’s overall operating budget of approximately $5 million that comes from corporate donors.

For our purposes, this example is interesting for two reasons:

First, it provides a clear example of a real conflict of interest. Case studies discussed in class provide a useful benchmark for analysis, but it’s such real-world instances that are most salient.

Second, it makes us think of conflicts of interest from the other side of the table. Much of our discussion in class has revolved around our own conflicts of interest. It’s one thing to adhere to employee guidelines espoused by media organizations like NPR (as was the case when the company reminded its employers they couldn’t attend the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rallies this fall), but the press’s responsibilities on this issue extend beyond our own actions. We must also consider potential conflicts of interest in sources.

This is a relatively easy task on its surface. Most of us would understand that if you send a query to a company’s PR rep, they’re likely to respond with glowing praise for the company they represent.

But the press in general has a checkered past in taking extra initiative in less obvious instances, Brill argues. She points to the disclosure of ties between health-care professionals and the big drug manufacturers who fund their research as a particularly apt example.

In these instances and the case of Zittrain above, a journalist has the responsibility to go that extra step to sift out any potential conflicts. From there, we can either cut the source from our article entirely or at least disclose any relevant conflicts and let the readers come to their own assumptions. But the important thing is that we address it at all.