A news story written by a reporter for The Red and Black may have been influenced by her connections to the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce. Sources within the Chamber of Commerce and the Athens Clarke-County government confirm that the reporter, Cristen Conger, is the daughter of the Chamber’s communications director, Dan Conger.
Ms. Conger’s story, published in Thursday’s edition of The Red and Black, covered the proposed redistricting of state senate districts in Athens Clarke-County. The proposed redistricting measure was introduced in the Georgia General Assembly by State Senator Ralph Hudgens (R-Comer). Hudgens has said publicly that he introduced the legislation based in part on requests from the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce.
Representatives from The Red and Black and the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as Ms. Conger herself, did not respond to requests seeking comment.
Related: The Red and Black: “Sen. wants to redraw lines,” 01/26/06
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I thought the point of view of that "article" was a oddly skewed.
Ok, but think really carefully before you answer. What if the reporter's name was Cristen Davison, or Cristen Kidd? Would you have posted the same comment?
For what it's worth, I didn't see any inherent bias in the article, which is why I started the post off, "A news story written by a reporter for The Red and Black may have been influenced..." May. Get it? As in draw your own conclusions.
Either way, the fact that the Red and Black has more than one reporter tells me that her byline shouldn't have been on the piece, whether her name is Cristen Conger, or our hypothetical Cristen Kidd. It's shoddy journalism, and whether there's an actual conflict of interest or not, there's the appearance of one, which bothers me, as well as some others, I'd bet.
It's interesting that you accuse me of "tearing away" at her, because I tried to present the information in as factual a manner as possible, and leave my personal comments out of it. I don't think it was biased, necessarily, but I don't think it was particularly professional either. The fact that we gave the Chamber, Ms. Conger, and the Red and Black a full day to respond before we ran the story just makes me think that they know it was pretty unprofessional as well.
Hey, we're not exactly the Washington Post here at AthPo either, but you guys know where my affiliations lie, and we've never made any attempt to hide those affiliations or our biases. If I end up volunteering for a candidate, I'll make sure you know that when I talk about them, or else I'll let someone else blog about that campaign.
Finally, no we didn't deblog you. Blogger has been acting really sketchy lately. I've had some issues getting posts up (via Blogger for Word) and have had to jump in and delete the occasional double (or triple) post from our end.
We don't censor, don't fret.
This debate isn't even important, but Publius's purpose is to point out the conflict of interest. It is no matter that the content was unbiased but that the writer has a conflict of interest. The Red and Black does indeed have a policy of avoiding conflicts of interest, but we don't know who to discredit -- that depends on if the writer didn't tell the editor or if the editor said OK. Or maybe it isn't a conflict of interest at all. I've contributed to the Red and Black with an arguable conflict of interest, but the editor approved it.
Again, this is not even an important issue, but what's life in Athens without ragging on all the media outlets once in a while?
At the very very least, the Red & Black should have written a disclaimer at the end of the article, or more judiciously not assigned her the story to begin with. Or turn it into an editorial column. The issue is not her objectivity, nor is it her journalistic integirty.
IT IS the unethical and sleazy repeated behavior of the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce and its employees. Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is worse than the actual crime, which I think is the case in this instance.
It's really simple folks, Ms. Conger SHOULD NOT have reported on this topic. Whether she was objective or not does not matter.
Since I think the 'petty' argument is weak, at best, I posted my own take at my blog.
Again, dawg corleone, the issue is not the content of the story. You are either missing the point or tossing a red herring.
Again ... why are we having this very debate? Because of the fact her father is the communications person at the Chamber of Commerce - a man responsible for honing and disseminating the message of that organization. In doing her research for the article, she would have had to go through a communications liason at the Chamber, which in this case ... is her father.
Folks can be witty about this all they want, that's fine. I'm on record as saying I don't think young Ms. Conger did anything wrong. But, the people who make these decisions at The Red & Black dropped the ball because there really is a conflict of interest, regardless if it showed up or not.
She shouldn't have had to include a disclaimer, because quite frankly, that's silly. Instead, she should have never been on the story in the first place.
I've seen the vast majority of those types of conflicts and issues arise, both in the newsroom I worked at and from hearing other reporters at other newspapers describe them. And each newsroom did its darnedest to play the whole thing straight by attempting to remove any perception of a bias.
So, again, forget disclosure. My problem is the decision-making process which enabled this situation to develop. Which is why I think several of your analogies don't hold any water.
This isn't about 'Surgeries with Sonny' because the Chamber didn't dream up that PR opportunity. This isn't about 'freecyling' because I'm quite sure she didn't passionately work for the organization getting that concept together (if she did ... I would think it's inappropriate).
This instance - this very instance - the story involved the redistricting effort and the supporters and detractors from both sides, with the major Athens-area supporter being the Chamber. It's a controversial issue with strong passions on both sides ... and the decision-makers figured it was OK for a reporter with close familial ties to the official communications person of an organization which strongly supports one side of said issue to take the lead reporting role.
That's my concern.
Bike Athens and Grow Green would not be that stupid and arrogant - that's one of the big differences between these groups and the Chamber. It's an issue of credibility.
btw - has anybody yet mentioned that this young woman's name actually appears on the masthead of the Chamber newsletters? It does and it has for several months.
I wouldn't say that her father's occupation limits her credibility one iota. As I've said (seemingly ad nauseam) I thought the story was fine, and she seems to be a pretty good reporter. I echo what JMac said about her writing ability, and he should know.
But her father's occupation does limit the credibility of this particular story, at least to me, and I daresay to others. Not impugning on her ability, or her credibility. I'm sure she'll turn out many other good stories, graduate, and get a good job reporting if that's what she wants to do.
Monticello raises a good point for discussion. Where is the line for an "acceptable" conflict of interest. If I go to work for the ABH, can I never cover politics, even though I flatter myself that I know a thing or two about it? Can I cover a candidate as long as I'm not publicly supporting him, financialy or otherwise? Can I cover a candidate I've worked for in the past?
Is there, or should there be, a definitive line for perceived conflicts of interest? Or is it like obscenity in that we can't quite define it but we know it when we see it?
Apparently, unlike you Corleone, I don't see through partisan-tinged glasses. If young Ms. Conger had a father who was communications director for BikeAthens and BikeAthens had taken a side in a controversial story, then, yes, she shouldn't be the reporter on said story. Likewise, if 'Conger' had actually been 'Kidd' ... then she shouldn't have done the story.
What folks are doing here are drawing the lines too narrowly. Should Ms. Conger be able to pursue a career in journalism that enables her to cover whatever she wants? Absolutely ... and if covering business fits the bill, then so be it.
But controversial stories are controversial stories, and what determines a definite conflict of interest isn't exactly a science (nor is journalism as I argued at my own blog). As someone who works in public relations for a local museum, I don't think I should be authoring any pieces for publication in any media. Nor do I think I should submit any freelance material regarding the firm my wife works for as a C.P.A.
Does this mean I can't ever write anything for the media, or that I couldn't ever write anything concerning accounting in general? Absolutely not. But it means I have the common sense to recognize a delicate situation when I see it and realize that if I do author said story, it's gonna more than likely raise some red flags.
Again ... 'inexact science.' And I sincerely think those debating against me (and Publius and Adrian) recognize what I'm saying, but are enjoying this little dance for some odd reason. Can Ms. Conger report on Partners for a Prosperous Athens? Sure. Can Ms. Conger report on Partners for a Prosperous Athens if it turns out the Chamber is responsible for some dastardly scheme to sabatoge the group? Probably not.
Not because of any bias she may harbor deep inside her soul, but because of the perception of bias that will result.
As an aside - I'll say again, disclosures are silly. I'd argue against any form of disclosure from a reporter and would instead opt to not have said reporter on the story in question.
And, following up what our anonymous poster said earlier, Cristen Conger did indeed author several articles for the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce's newsletter within the past year, during which time the Chamber was developing its legislative agenda which included its suggestion the district be cut in half.
So, while I still think the father-daughter connection is grounds for a questionable journalistic ethic, I have no doubt that someone who was writing materials for the Chamber has a definite conflict of interest.
"As someone who works in public relations for a local museum, I don't think I should be authoring any pieces for publication in any media."
Press releases, media advisories, and other tools of the trade (which a good media outlet will rewrite anyway) notwithstanding.
And, to further clarify my point, I meant author pieces related to my place of employment.
Disclosure. It ain't just a Michael Crichton movie.
Yes, she shouldn't have been assigned to the story in the first place, but I don't think there's anything wrong with (or silly about) a note at the end disclosing her links to the COC. Full disclosure is even more appropriate in fuzzier cases, where it's hard to say if the reporter in question should have been assigned to the story.
Post a Comment