Barney Keller’s dad managed to make himself the story by not disclosing his paternal relationship to Ogo’s spokesman on the air until this week.
With a competitive congressional race in progress, WBZ-TV political analyst Jon Keller has covered the Fifth District special election for the nightly news, gone one on one with the candidates for “Keller @ Large” interviews, and dissected the race for WBZ radio. But until this week, Keller never disclosed to his broadcast audience that his son, Barney, works as the campaign spokesman for the Republican candidate, Jim Ogonowski.
Journalism professors were not impressed.
Several journalism professors told the Globe that Keller appeared to have lapsed in not disclosing his son’s role each time he discussed the race and that he should have considered staying out of coverage of the race altogether.
“That’s impermissible,” said Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University. He called it “a matter of elementary disclosure, to take the time to explain that one is connected.”
Lou Ureneck, chairman of the journalism department at Boston University, agreed. Avoiding the appearance of conflict or potential conflict is as important as avoiding actual conflict or bias, he said, “because it goes to the credibility of the news organization.”
Jon and his bosses are apparently of the view that disclosing the relationship on Keller’s blog was enough. But if the point of disclosure is to, you know, disclose, then it’s hard to see how just doing it on the blog can suffice. I’d wager that no more than a tiny percentage of WBZ’s viewers also check Jon’s blog, or even know that it exists, so the vast majority of TV viewers remained unaware of the situation. He should have just disclosed the relationship routinely and let the viewers and readers make up their minds.
But here’s the best line of the article:
Keller said he was unfamiliar with the academic distinction between bias and apparent or possible bias. “I guess I missed a class that day,” he said.
Yeah, I guess so.
” I challenge anyone to point to anything in my coverage that’s even remotely identifiable as bias or unfairness.”
<
p>
Maybe transcripts would be even-handed. But he basically snears in his snide sideways manner when he talks about Tsongas and he gushes in his smarmy cloying manner when he talks about Ogonowski.
…the notion that journalists have a responsibility not to be bias. I think journalists often do and usually should have a point of view. The bias is not the problem. The conflict of interest is. That is the problem. Everyone knows keller hates MA democrats. That is firmly established. Not everyone knew his son worked for Ogo.
knows keller hates MA democrats.
<
p>
…very few WBZ viewers know that.
claiming that his reporting is unbiased. I understand that bias is intrinsic to most journalism. Keller is making the claim that he has been unbiased.
I wonder how many people knew that JKeller had a blog? I certainly didn’t.
<
p>
No, full disclosure would have been a concurrent disclosure any time JKeller had discussed the MA-05 race in the same piece.
Use the scroll bar you so often advocate, and scroll down to ‘Mass. Media’. See that name there, Jon Keller? THAT would be Jon Keller’s blog – right there as a link on BMG. You ARE familiar with BMG?
<
p>
This had been argued about quite a bit on this site, and it was also disclosed on the WBZ web site. Should he have mentioned it on air? It couldn’t have hurt – like Dan Kennedy saying ‘My standard disclosure’ on his blog. But time is far more scarce on-air than on a blog, and often you will hear on air – to learn more, go to our web site. And the disclosure HAD been amde concurrantly there. Was it a deep dark secret? Really, no.
<
p>
I’m disappointed to learn that Gitlin apparently doesn’t read BMG either.
…I’ll let you know the next time that I pay attention to the left-hand column of any blog.
<
p>
But that’s a little beside the point. Just how many people who watch the blatherings that pass for news (between the pill commercials) on WBZ know that JKeller has a blog? Or that he has mounted what passes for his disclaimer on his blog?
unfortunately special html characters don’t work in the titles of posts. At least, I don’t know how to do it.
David- You should be able to do it without html tags, by using the Character Map in the System Tools folder- at least if you’re using Windows.
Though not every character seems to work- some of those question marks were special characters that seemed to work when I previewed my comment, but then didn’t translate after I posted it. I guess it’s hit or miss.
<
p>¶?襧?????
At least, that seems the obvious implication of their argument that disclosure on a blog is the same as disclosure on a broadcast.
<
p>
All of which underlines the fatuousness of the, “are bloggers journalists,” discussion: it has no meaning because “journalism” is a word dependent on circumstance, as very well discussed on this thread. A doctor is a person licensed by state medical authorities. A lawyer is a member of the bar licensed to practice law. There is no licensing body for journalists. I agree with Charley: the issue should be considered case by case.
<
p>
In this case Keller, who has already disgraced himself as a political analyst with his sloppy borderline-incoherent attack rant, The Bluest State, has now admitted that he, “missed the class,” on a critical issue of journalistic ethics.
<
p>
He’s continuing to make excellent progress, however, in his reinvention of himself as a Fox News propagandist.
Just wanted to point out that I’m quoted in the Globe story about my friend Jon Keller, and I write more about it here on Media Nation.
<
p>
Such conflicts are common in the media, and they are only occasionally disclosed. To my mind, something involving one of your adult children barely qualifies. Spouse is the big enchilada, and that’s not the issue here.
<
p>
Someone should put together a list. But just for starters, Howard Kurtz’s and George Will’s wives are both Republican political operatives, and they rarely disclose. For the record, I don’t question their integrity, either.
<
p>
I also recommend “The Bluest State” here. Jon’s politics are not mine, but it seems kind of insane to say that he doesn’t know his stuff.
are very common. Here’s one you can put on the list: Fox News president Roger Ailes (who launched Rush Limbaugh’s career) worked as a political consultant for Nixon, Reagan, Daddy Bush, and Giuliani to name a few. For the record, I do question his integrity.
<
p>
As far as Keller goes, I’m continually amazed that anyone thinks he’s worth listening to. Here’s Jon last week, “taken aback” that Romney is hated in Massachusetts, and that Romney would get crushed here in a heads up match against any of the top Dems.
Keller needed a poll to figure that out? He’s surprised?
Sorry Dan, Jon’s politics aren’t mine either, but it seems kind of insane to say that Keller does know his stuff. He’s clueless.
The fact that Ailes worked (past tense) as a consultant for Nixon, et al., is evidence of bias.
<
p>
The fact that JKeller’s son is currently working (present tense) for one of the campaigns in MA-05, without effective disclosure in his (JKeller’s) TV commentaries, is evidence of conflict of interest. Why? Presumably, if Ogonowski is elected, it is likely that JKeller’s son would be hired into his congressional office.
to have family members that are involved in a similar kind of work as oneself, and so that may well put journalists in somewhat peculiar positions. And I think that part of being a professional is being able to deal with that.
<
p>
But, let’s forget about Keller himself and whether he is or isn’t a good, “professional” (i.e. dutiful) journalist or not. I don’t care if it’s Edward R. Murrow himself: It’s the conflict itself that matters, and the fact that regardless of the content of the coverage, the public will properly wonder how the journalist would have reported in the absence of such a conflict.
<
p>
The case at hand is especially awkward, as Dad is directly covering his son’s activities. To whom does Dad Keller address those tough, squirm-inducing questions to the Ogonowski campaign: “Son, let me ask you a question about SCHIP …” He just can’t credibly do that — no one could. And the reason why he can’t do that ought to be made public knowledge, consistently and pervasively — probably by the station itself after every Keller segment on the race.
<
p>
We like to tweak or bash Keller here, but that’s really got nothing to do with it. It’s the awkwardness of the situation, which in its origin is really no one’s fault, neither Barney nor Jon.
…son demands David leave the debate studio…hhmmmm
honestly, I don’t think there’s any connection there. I think Barney did what he did at NECN because he’s young and over-zealous.
And if one or both of the Margolis brothers had also showed up, I’ll bet no one would have complained and everyone would have been allowed to stay.
And why I completely disagree with Dan in that this isn’t some big deal, or something.
<
p>
A conflict of interest exists. WBZ has, presumably, more than one reporter who’s covered political stories. Isn’t there a clear solution to this problem?
<
p>
Clearly one of WBZ’s other reporters should have covered the MA-05 race. They may not have a huge staff, but I’m sure they could have managed that. If they’re stubborn and want Keller on these kinds of stories,maybe they should avoid hiring people like Keller in the future – hiring people who’s family works directly for and with campaigns is always a recipe for creating those conflicts of interest, so just don’t do it. Simple as pie.
<
p>
Finally, Dan, I don’t get how you can defend an author who writes a book that doesn’t source its facts anywhere. I think you’re letting your own biases get in the way of the importance of these journalisic matters. I don’t know about how you grade papers as a professor, but if I wrote a paper on the lines of Keller’s book, not only would I have gotten an F, but I probably would have been reported to the dean for academic dishonesty.