Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Well, I now have aided and abetted MLB.com in its revenue-raising ventures, which I’d rather not do. When I retired from the Times in 2008, a high-ranking official offered me the opportunity to write for MLB.com. I said no, thank you. Having covered M.L.B. for many years, I felt it would have been some sort of conflict. But here I am helping their advertising.
How would it have been a conflict if he was no longer covering MLB for a media outlet and if he had never tried to use that media outlet work as a stepping stone to the job working for MLB?
Some of us in the business, however, don’t see why the new guys on the block can’t exercise the old professionalism and simply separate editorial from advertising. MLB.com’s media wall isn’t high enough.
MLB.com’s media wall isn’t high enough.
Some of us in the business
He was just trying to seem important by playing the "conflict of interest" card, I guess. There's clearly no conflict of interest if you're working for one party and only that party, and unambiguously so. Say I was working for a newspaper as a critic, and then an orchestra wanted me to be their program annotator. First I'm working for an independent entity covering them, and then I'm working directly for them, so it might be a conflict of interest to do both jobs at once, but not in succession.
They should really keep sad, little, angry bloggers out.
That does create at the very least the appearance of something a bit more untoward. If you were interviewing to work for the orchestra while writing reviews about the orchestra your independence would be in question.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.3916 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed