• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not a conflict of interest to report on something you have a financial stake in? Just because the stock is at $60 doesn’t mean you wouldn’t profit if it went to $80.

    • yeather
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Such a small amount of money is easily explainable in the journalistic report. In fact, I did so right now. “In order to gain access to this event and be allowed the provelidge to ask follow up questions, this reporter was forced to buy one stock of Shell at $60 a share. I did my best to not let this influence my journalism in any way.”

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s proper that a journalist should put a disclaimer in their article, stating the conflict of interest. That does not mean the conflict of interest is suddenly done away with - it’s still there.

        Having a conflict of interest also doesn’t mean the person cannot be trusted. However buying shares in the company you’re reporting on would be introducing a significant doubt that isn’t really worth the minimal benefits they’d get from attending shareholder meetings.

        • yeather
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          My guy buying one share of a company to gain access to a stockholder only event is not a conflict of interest. Think about it critically for any length of time and you’ll realize this.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mate, it’s called a conflict of interest. By owning a share in the company, you have an interest in the company’s success, and therefore an inherent bias in any reporting you do. You might not act on that bias, but it’s still there - and most importantly for journalists it’s perceptible to any and every reader.

            I’m sure most journalists would not let it influence them. However the issue is it affects the quality of their writing towards their audience. It’s not about whether or not they will act on their bias, but their appearance of bias.

            Ultimately, it’s just not worth the hassle. Otherwise we would already have journalists doing this - just because Shell are no longer letting journalists into shareholder meetings doesn’t mean it’s a new thing.

            You’re not arguing against me thinking this isn’t a good idea, you’re arguing against the entire journalism industry thinking that.

            • yeather
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not a conflict of interest if you buy a share as part of the investigation, literally I have no clue how to tell you this in any other way. If you need to own a share to ask questions, it is only proper to buy a share and ask the questions. You are the reason journalism is dying.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The reason you buy it does not matter. Owning a share in a business you’re reporting on is a de facto conflict of interest. You merely saying it isn’t does not make your statement true. Coming up with excuses for why it was bought doesn’t either. A good journalist will at least still declare their conflicts of interest, but that declaration does not dispell it.

                You are the reason journalism is dying.

                You are being an ass.

      • taladar@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless their stock price drops to $0 or doubles it is not even $60 but just a small fraction of that.