This morning, I awoke to a perplexing question in the BetaNews Tips inbox. Reader Mark Bryant shares a story from Medium and asks: “Should Journalists be obliged to declare in their reviews that the company has paid for business class travel to the event and given them free devices?” It’s a goddamn good question given too little attention.
“The True Bendgate: How Apple Bends Reality and Why the Media is Playing Along”, by Richard Gutjahr with German-to-English translation by Elka Sloan, is excellent and informative reading. Medium is good forum for the tale. Richard tells about receiving an invite to last month’s iPhone 6 and 6 Plus launch event, for which he reports Apple paid for transportation.
Richard writes:
Recently I was lucky enough to receive one of the coveted invitations. Not to London, mind you, where product presentations for the European media are usually held. This time I was invited to come to Cupertino. Two days in California, all inclusive. Of course I was free to pay for my own ticket, I was told when I explicitly asked. But wouldn’t it look funny, if I were to travel all by myself back in Economy, while my colleagues were living it up in Business? There were times when Apple treated media representatives to Economy only—even for long-haul flights. That was changed a few years ago—allegedly because some journalists clamored for it.
Chilling, and reason enough for him to write something:
For this article I compared notes with countless colleagues, and all of them were anxious to remain anonymous, so that they would not fall from grace at Apple. Fall from grace for reporting the truth about a company. In a journalist that’s a worrying reflex.
I won’t recap more from Richard’s account, which I haven’t confirmed with Apple and won’t bother to. My topic today isn’t the company’s media relations policy but the answer to Mark’s question. He framed it with the Medium story, which I excerpt for context.
Simply Answered
The rest of this post incorporates and adds to my long email reply to Mark, and I suspect some people will wonder at my answer—or I should say answers.
The answer to paid travel is “No” because there should be nothing to disclose. Journalists should never accept paid travel. Such compensation creates conflict of interest by presumed obligation. Bloggers do accept travel offers, unfortunately, and most certainly they—or anyone else taking such gratuity—should disclose it. Without exception. I will add context to my reasoning in the next subhead.
Review product is trickier. Access to a product is often necessary to review it—most significantly when made available before release. Early access can carry implied obligations, when, particularly Apple’s case, select few are chosen. There is the specter of withdrawal that is unstated—that Apple can block future early access, or any product at all, if the review is negative.
The Bigger Picture
In my book Responsible Reporting: Field Guide for Bloggers, Journalists, and Other Online News Gatherers, I redefine conflict of interest, which is an inadequate ethical guideline today. What really matters, in the Internet era of news reporting: Objects of conflict.
The more traditional conflict-of-interest definition infers bias. But I contend that bias is unavoidable. Everyone is biased by something, because of the influences shaping each individuals point of view.
I explain in the book:
Bias is not the same as conflict of interest. Bias is about perspective, and what influences it. Conflict of interest—this chapter’s topic—is all about obligations and benefits. The closer the reporter’s or source’s relationship to the object of conflict, the more likely there will be influence. Since the news gatherer’s first obligation is to his or her audience, any relationship that puts the audience second is conflict of interest.
Free travel is an object of conflict, not because it is a financial benefit but because, in the Apple example, obligation is implied—with possible withdrawal of future access to events or review products. Again, from the book:
Conflict of interest is directly proportional to obligation. As the benefit the reporter receives from the object of conflict rises, potential influence increases. The same rule applies to sources.
The traditional news ethic applies monetary value to conflict of interest, which is why most media organizations cap gifts or review products to $50 (if that). Rationale: The more you receive, the greater the obligation. I disagree. Personal relationships, many of which cannot be measured by dollars and cents, or affiliations delivering direct financial gain are much more influential—and too often newsroom ethical rules diminish or dismiss the former.
That said, some gifts carry obligations because of human relationships. Intimacy increases influence. That’s why I recommend that journalists keep cordial but distant relationships when working with marketing or public relations professionals.
Compromising Positions
A $649 iPhone might influence a reviewer. Relationship with Apple and its PR reps, who provide special access to events and products and free travel, establishes obligations that cannot be ignored as being influential. Far more serious is the secondary objects of conflict. If Apple withdraws access, which might include leaks and off-the-record confirmations, the reporter’s career could suffer.
So what if you the reporter/reviewer uses a free, shiny new Mac for a few months or longer? That compromises you how? But losing access to Apple would put many bloggers or journalists in a disadvantageous position with respect to competitors and possibly lead to reprimands from editors. “You fucked up our relationship with Apple over an iPhone review?” wouldn’t surprise me as typical editorial response.
Any presumed, personal monetary gain from tech devices is insignificant, while the obligations related to access and relationships are enormous. The compromising position is the reporter’s livelihood.
Diminishing Conflicts
Mark makes a smart observation, in one of our follow-up emails:
As for the Internet news sites, in parallel to other sectors a few big ones now dominate. Now, if The Verge had ‘Disclaimer: I was handpicked by Apple, who paid for me to fly to their press event Business class where I was given a free phone’ at the end of their review a few people might start asking questions. I can’t see it ever happening. These sites rely on getting early access to devices to they can be the first to review them (well, all on the same day that Apple authorises them).
That’s my point about implicit obligations associated with access. While I like Mark’s idea, and think it should be standard practice exactly as he states, disclosure is no remedy. I come out strongly against disclosure statements in my book because I see journalists, or bloggers, using licenses to do whatever they want. I call ethics statements “bogus”, for example, “because there is presumption that transparency disavows objects of conflict. Admission absolves you of nothing“.
Disclosing, say, that a reporter owns stock in Apple shouldn’t allow him or her to report about the company. But transparency statements often are used as get-out-of-jail cards to continue conflicted behavior. They are not. Yes, reporters should disclose, but I say disclosure isn’t enough. The audience must hold reporters accountable for real or perceived conflicts of interest. That’s where Mark’s suggestion, exactly as worded, should evoke some accountability among audiences, whether readers, listeners, or viewers.
Some sound advice straight from the book—and notice the emphasis on relationships, rather than minuscule monetary gains, as tainting reporting:
The simplest way to diminish your own conflicts of interest is to reduce obligations. Basic guidelines:
1. Don’t invest in companies that you report about; I recommend holding no stocks whatsoever (my personal practice).
2. Don’t report about entities with which you have some other financial interest or from which there is another direct benefit.
3. Don’t report about entities where someone intimately close to you (e.g. parent, child, spouse, or partner) is employed.
4. Don’t report about someone with whom you have obligating relationship, such as a relative, friend, colleague, boss, or schoolmate.
My Disclosure
As a journalist, I have never taken travel from Apple or another company about which I report. However, I did receive travel compensation when working as an analyst 10 years ago; that’s what my employer expected. Because of my journalistic ethics, I never felt right about the gratuities, which analyst firms don’t typically disclose. Conflict with my personal principles was fundamental to my decision to abandon my analyst career and return to being a journalist in 2006.
It’s my strong conviction that the majority of financial or trade analysts are fundamentally conflicted and cannot be relied on as sources; I use them sparingly. Travel expenses are but a ditty. If, say, Apple is the analyst’s client or he or she has customers invested in the company, these relationships are objects of conflict bound to financial obligations. But, again, money isn’t the object of conflict but the human relationships connected to it.
That said, with respect to receiving something of value from a company, here is my straightforward rule: If the item directly relates to doing your job, okay. By that standard, don’t accept money or gifts. Review product isn’t a gift. You receive it for the benefit of your audience, which expects fair and impartial assessment. I typically will hold onto review units for months, if possible, because long-term use is the most revealing.
However, at this time, none of my daily tech devices are review products. But they are all Apple, and each was purchased by me: iPad Air, iPhone 6, and 13-inch MacBook Pro Retina Display.
One more thing: This post intentionally violates Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, because the question asked demands a Yes or No answer. There is in my estimation no grey area. You know my answer.
Photo Credit: Dale Gillard