FDA looking to employ Journalists

[Avatara]

Journalists have a responsibility to the public that comes before
anything else. Our job is to report on the activities of our government
and others in positions of authority, not to join in league with
them--whoever they may be. Being a journalist IS exercising a role as a
citizen. That role is to serve as an outside observer, not as an insider.

As for making necessary professional contacts, it is possible to do that
without serving on federal advisory committees.

Where I would make an exception would be a panel that is determining
procedures for embedding reporters with military units, or the
Congressional press galleries, but those are about self-governance of
the press in relation to government entities. Actually, the Dept. of
Defense panel was somewhat controversial, as I remember.

The Society of Professional Journalists handbook, "Doing Ethics in
Journalism," has a chapter on conflicts of interest. Here is the first
bit: "The success of a free press is reflected in the ability of
journalism to honor a primary loyalty to the public.... In order to seek
truth and report it as fully as possible, journalists must be independent."

I don't think these core values of our profession are old-fashioned or
unsophisticated.

[The Mockingbird]

No matter how many flags the SPJ waves around, the fact of the matter is the vast majority of "journalists" are and have been corporate whores for decades.

Ethics aren't something you pick up with your employee handbook. Working for the FDA is only an ethical problem if you live in whatever imaginary world the SPJ activists have been living, recently.

[Diplomat]

Amen, Mockingbird.

The SPJ is out of touch with reality and has been for a long time. One of the reasons I got out was that it was becoming too ideological.

[2:30]

More likely it was the fact that you were busy writing politicians' speeches.

[ June 12, 2007, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: 2:30 ]

[Ferrycrossthemersey]

Cynics. I'm an ethical journalist. And I know I'm not alone.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by 2:30:
More likely it was the fact that you were busy writing politicians' speeches.Since you are once again spouting off inaccuracies, as you so often do, I'll set the record straight again. You seem to have trouble telling the truth, in addition to your other issues.

Here are the facts. 2:30 will have to look up what the word "facts" means, since they are a foreign concept to her.

I was a communciations officer for a state government agency for two years, appointed by the Governor. I wrote speeches for a non-elected department head who is not a politician and wrote one op-ed piece for the Governor. I left that to return to media and gladly so. I never wrote a speech for him and never worked in his campaigns. So I did not write "politicians' speeches" as our resident fabricator extraordinaire claims. It was a good opportunity to serve the people and I am proud of what I was able to do over there but I don't think it should be a lifetime thing.

I left SPJ long before that because the magazine articles showed a definite slant as well as an elitist mindset. I'm not giving my money to an organization like that. RTNDA was a much better fit as well as a local press club. Unlike SPJ, I have actually received member benefits from those.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by 2:30:
More likely it was the fact that you were busy writing politicians' speeches.Typical snarky comment. Moveon.org must be late with this month's check.

[NYC Street]

There isn't much difference between writing Op Ed pieces for a governor and advising the FDA. Both seem inappropriate for a working journalist.

A reporter I know (who looks a lot like me) used to cover the military. The Navy offered him a Reserve commission as a Lt. Cdr., with an assignment at CINFO, the Navy's office of the Chief of Information. No conflict, the Navy said, because they'd never interfere in his day job.

It wasn't just the bad haircut policy that made him turn down the job.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
There isn't much difference between writing Op Ed pieces for a governor and advising the FDA. Both seem inappropriate for a working journalist.

A reporter I know (who looks a lot like me) used to cover the military. The Navy offered him a Reserve commission as a Lt. Cdr., with an assignment at CINFO, the Navy's office of the Chief of Information. No conflict, the Navy said, because they'd never interfere in his day job.

It wasn't just the bad haircut policy that made him turn down the job.Uh, I don't think Dip was working for the governor and for a news organization at the same time.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
There isn't much difference between writing Op Ed pieces for a governor and advising the FDA. Both seem inappropriate for a working journalist.

A reporter I know (who looks a lot like me) used to cover the military. The Navy offered him a Reserve commission as a Lt. Cdr., with an assignment at CINFO, the Navy's office of the Chief of Information. No conflict, the Navy said, because they'd never interfere in his day job.

It wasn't just the bad haircut policy that made him turn down the job.NYC, I have always thought you were an intelligent person but if you're believing the lies of your pal 2:30, I shall have to reconsider that. I don't think you have the same prejudices and lack of knowledge as she but are perhaps naive in this aspect.

Let me explain this and please read slowly in case you have trouble grasping it:

I LEFT the news business to work for the state agency for TWO YEARS. I then returned to the news media. I wasn't doing both at the same time, as you seem to have concluded.

I don't think a newsperson should be working for the FDA. Nor do I think they should be shilling or volunteering for or lifting up groups like MoveOn.org, the ACLU, Media Matters or any other group with a partisan or political agenda.

[ June 12, 2007, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Diplomat ]

[NYC Street]

Dip, I understand that, and did not intend to suggest that you were working as a journalist while simultaneously working for a government agency. My comment was merely that one type of activity is about the same as another, without reference to who, if anyone, was doing it.

I agree with you entirely that a reporter should not be involved with any political organization or cause - it's why I'm registered as an independent, rather than as a member of a party, even though if I were to register in a party it would be solely for the purpose of voting in the primaries.

Ultimately, where I come down on the objective journalist debate is that while all of us have opinions, none of us should write stories from which a viewer can determine those opinions.

And as to working in politics then coming back to reporting - any number of people have done that, some better than others, among them Russert and Stephanopolous. I'll leave it to others to decide who has done it well and who hasn't.

Finally, as to you and 2:30 - I suspect that if you were in the same room, you'd find the conversation lively and interesting, even if you didn't agree with her on much. Hell, I don't agree with her on much, and I used to flirt with her on a daily basis.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by 2:30:
More likely it was the fact that you were busy writing politicians' speeches.As opposed to being a mouthpiece for the hard left who has no thoughts of her own.

[2:30]

Is that as opposed to the soft right?

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
There isn't much difference between writing Op Ed pieces for a governor and advising the FDA. Both seem inappropriate for a working journalist.

A reporter I know (who looks a lot like me) used to cover the military. The Navy offered him a Reserve commission as a Lt. Cdr., with an assignment at CINFO, the Navy's office of the Chief of Information. No conflict, the Navy said, because they'd never interfere in his day job.

It wasn't just the bad haircut policy that made him turn down the job.It sounds to me like some people are more concerned about avoidance the appearance of a conflict of interest than the reality of one.

Here's the FDA's mission statement:

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health. Hmm, getting accurate, science based information to the public about medicine and foods to improve their health. How is that not journalism, again?

The only difference between working for the FDA and, say, Rupert Murdoch is the FDA doesn't care if your work turns a profit or annoys sponsors.

If for some reason you had an ethical dilemma with your work at the FDA, you could always resign, or threaten to do so, just like you could at Fox News. That's why the Navy analogy doesn't work, by the way, since you would have an obligation to continued employment.

Ultimately, the job is just a vehicle to practice the craft. The ethics are in the individuals themselves. And I find it particularly disappointing that the so-called ethical leaders in our craft can't see that distinction.

[ June 14, 2007, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: The Mockingbird ]

[2:30]

There's a word for a "journalist" at the FDA. The word is "flack." Some prefer the more genteel "media relations specialist."

[The Mockingbird]

...just as some might argue that "Journalist" is a more genteel term for "Corporate Whore".

Care to give us a specific example of the enormous breaches of ethics you claim are taking place at the FDA?