Full Disclosure Rules for Journalists

[MineralMan]

When I was writing for a couple of major computer magazines, it was OK if I did certain things, as long as I disclosed them to the magazine. Owning stock in high-tech companies was one of them. If I wrote for other publications, I also had to disclose that. I was prohibited from doing any writing for close competitors, of course. Anything that might compromise my impartiality had to be fully disclosed.

Well, I didn't do any of those things, so it was never an issue. The only time I had to make a disclosure to a publisher was once, when I wrote a software parody of a Microsoft program. I released it into the public domain, and it got a lot of publicity both here and internationally. In fact, it made me a minor celebrity in some circles for a short time. I informed the magazine I wrote for of its release before I released it, because I often reviewed Microsoft products.

Microsoft went through the roof over this parody. I continued to review Microsoft products for the publication, and did it fairly, as I always had done. It all blew over.

Contracts with publishers and broadcasters often include full disclosure clauses like that one. Keith Olberman's contract apparently contained such a clause. He didn't make disclosure, so he's suspended. He's not a news guy. He's a commentator and an editorializer. He should be back on the air shortly. He just caused MSNBC some embarrassment, and they didn't like it. I doubt he'll be permanently fired...just spanked.

Full disclosure is pretty much the standard for all publications and broadcasters. It's part of the deal if you're a journalist. You violate it at your peril.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. NBC News says MSNBC does NOT fall under their rules....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9490298

[MineralMan]

2. I haven't seen Olberman's contract. Have you?

Contractual matters between individuals and their employers are generally not public and can take pretty much any form.

I do not know what his contract says. I simply told you about my contracts with publishers. I assume that such disclosure clauses are pretty standard in the industry.

[sufrommich]

3. MSNBC has it's own rules..

"MSNBC.com employees who take part in civic or other outside activities, including participation in political campaigns or public events such as speeches, marches and political rallies, or who publicly espouse controversial positions, may find that these activities jeopardize their standing as objective journalists. MSNBC.com employees should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain the prior approval of, the Editor in Chief or his designee.

"If a contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a candidate or group with a political or social agenda could create the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the employee's responsibilities at MSNBC.com, the contribution must receive the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief. Any participation in a political campaign must be reported to the employee's immediate manager.

"MSNBC.com employees may not be candidates for public office without the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief. MSNBC.com will endeavor to arrange for an appropriate leave of absence during any such period of candidacy, if possible. In no event will any MSNBC.com employee be permitted to report during such a candidacy, without prior approval of the Editor in Chief.

[MineralMan]

4. Yah, well, if that's the case, then K.O. screwed himself

by not following that policy. I like him, but a guy's got to follow his contract requirements. I certainly did, and know a couple of journalists with the same publications I worked for who got canned for violation of these disclosure clauses.

In my case, I got away with even a non-subtle poke at Microsoft, primarily because I released my parody into the public domain and could not profit from it. I never changed my standards for software reviews, and my publisher knew it. Hell, the products I reviewed from Microsoft were almost always the clear winner in any case, so the point was moot.

Bill Gates does not like me, though. He told me so in person once. I laughed. I was right. The program I parodied, Microsoft Bob, deserved nothing more than a parody from anyone. It died. I was told that my parody of the program was running on many PCs at Microsoft. It was actually on one of their servers, and was the only free program included in compatibility tests for Windows 95 when it was first released. Bill Gates just didn't see the humor in it all, I guess. Could be because Microsoft Bob was his wife, Melinda's, pet project.

Woo-freaking-hoo!

But, I still disclosed the information to my publisher.

[MineralMan]

5. Full Disclosure to DU: Bubba, the Microsoft Bob Parody

Here's some further information on my parody of Microsoft Bob, from the time it was rediscovered by a tech blog:

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/classic-tech/?p=169&tag=content;leftCol

If you're a Microsoft aficionado or detractor, you might find it amusing.

[madfloridian]

6. This is not about you right now. It is about Keith Olbermann

It is about why Joe Scarborough gets away with the same stuff because they say he is not a news person.

Well neither is Olbermann.

[MineralMan]

7. Why thank you for the chiding message. I wonder that you took

the time to chide me in a thread that is not even getting any attention. But, to each DUer his or her own, I suppose.

As for something being about me or not, I don't take your point. I mentioned something as an example of typical disclosure rules in the publishing industry. So I decided to provide access to information about my example. You don't think that's worthwhile. OK.

I'm suitably chastened, I suppose...

Thanks for noticing my little post and for commenting on it. That's nice of you. Thanks for the kick.

[madfloridian]

8. I am noticing nearly every post here filled with "chiding"

toward those of us who dare to speak out and disagree on anything at all.

It is such a chilling thing to have him taken off the air right now. If you don't see that, it is your problem.

It is an almost constant chill in the air in this country now as Democrats tend to stand up for very little....and the media is so dishonest.

[MineralMan]

9. My dear madfloridian:

I did not chide anyone. I posted a bit of information about disclosure clauses. It is you who are doing the chiding. I am, therefore, thoroughly chidden. :rofl:

Thank you again for kicking my thread. Perhaps it will be of interest to someone where it had not been before. I appreciate all such help.

[Cha]

10. You ol'

reprobate, you! :rofl:

[madfloridian]

14. Cha, my how you have changed over the years here.

You used to take firm stands on issues, and you never used to laugh at those of us who believe in speaking out honestly.

That's a shame, too.

So you two go ahead and laugh.

There's a chill in the air, and too bad you don't feel it.

[Cha]

16. Just Stop, with your neverending chiding, mf. You don't know

a damn thing about me but that doesn't stop you from spouting off with your personal attacks.

[madfloridian]

17. If that is what you call a personal attack, then I will stop completely

any communication with you. That should please you greatly considering what you call a personal attack.

I get worse than that several times a hour.

Bye.

[madfloridian]

15. I am chided here daily. And not nearly so kindly.

So laugh about it. It's all a big joke now, isn't it?

[MineralMan]

20. Well, I'm not really one for chiding people. I tend to post information,

and leave people to decide what they think of it. I do have a slight penchant for posting somewhat sarcastic posts at times, though.

Is it a big joke? I can't say, with regard to this thread. I posted some information, based on my personal knowledge of an industry that includes places like MSNBC. My parody of Microsoft Bob, on the other hand, was a big elaborate joke. I do those occasionally, but only on special occasions. I'm actually very, very good at it, and have other examples to share, if you're interested. But, this OP was no joke at all. It pointed out that disclosure clauses are almost universal in contracts for journalists and their close associates, editorial commentators. I guess I don't understand quite what offended you about my post.

But, you're certainly free to be offended by just about anything, I suppose. It's not really of concern to me. I post what I think appropriate and interesting. If you are offended with my posts in general, there is always the ignore feature on DU. I don't use it, myself, but it is available if you have need for it.

Had you not come to this thread and chided me about my OP and its ensuing posts, we would not be having this conversation and the thread would have gone out of sight very quickly. Again, I appreciate your regular kicks to my thread. They helped it to survive, and my information to reach more people. DU's great!

[madfloridian]

25. I never post information.

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

26. Well, certainly not in this thread.

[Spazito]

22. Hmmm, gosh, your post has now made it 'all about you'....

and not for the first time. Pot/kettle. Sometimes it is wise to take one's own advice and not make it all about "you".

[madfloridian]

23. ....

Ignoring the real issue.

Have you not noticed how easily we all accept everything that is done now, actually excusing all of it by pretending to understand it?

[Spazito]

24. Your post became the 'issue' if only because of the pot vs kettle aspect n/t

[DevonRex]

11. ...

:eyes:

[Born_A_Truman]

18. I could have sworn this was MM's thread ...

Knowing DU there are probably several threads about KO and JS, so if MM is discussing another point, that is his option on his thread.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. So you were the one behind that

LOL...

Now what galls me is the double standard... that is all.

As is I think KO will go his own way, and the ratings will go to hell anyway.

And it will prove that Left Wing TV don't sell, like radio, like papers, like all.

After all we are a right leaning country :sarcasm:

This is not about KO actually, but about ... Comcast and who owns Comcast... yes I think there is something to that.

And that was a FUNNY AS HELL parody... for the record.

[MineralMan]

21. How nice of you to say that. I'll pass your comment on to my

brother-in-law in Florida, who conspired with me by doing the artwork. The rest was mine, including the hokey voices.

[Catherina]

12. MSNBC has some explaining to do

If a news organizations asks reporters to abstain from making political donations, there's at least some logic behind it. But opinion journalists express their ideas every day. Olbermann tells us why we should support certain candidates; why would it make any difference — or be surprising — if he is making donations to any of those very same candidates?

In fact, MSNBC agreed with this point back in 2007, when it was discovered that host Joe Scarborough had given a political donation to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts. Back then, the network not only kept Scarborough on air, but defended his donation:

A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. "Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe's. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter."

Woops. Looks like MSNBC has some explaining to do.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2010/11/msnbc_indefinit.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

[MineralMan]

13. That's entirely possible. I was only providing an example of how

disclosure clauses work in the publishing industry. I've never seen a contract without one. What MSNBC's motives are for this action, I cannot say. Perhaps someone who actually knows will say something at some point. I'm not sure anyone on DU knows, unless we have some folks from MSNBC on here.