Read on Twitter
I was too busy covering actual news to address what well known flag commentator Blois Olson wrote about me last week.
TW: Not many people will care about this.
The way it happened "behind the scenes," though, is telling. So if you want to know how it went down, keep reading.
TW: Not many people will care about this.
The way it happened "behind the scenes," though, is telling. So if you want to know how it went down, keep reading.
I've been public about being a part of the ACLU's lawsuit against the MPD, the city and the state for violating the rights of journalists in the unrest following the killing of George Floyd.
As a freelancer, I was in position to help get it moving quickly. Other folks joined.
As a freelancer, I was in position to help get it moving quickly. Other folks joined.
On Monday, I got a text from Blois. "Do you still have litigation against MPD?"
I responded saying yes, the ACLU is driving it but I am apart of it.
He said. "OK, you might want to think about disclosing it when you cover MPD. Someone asked me."
He added "Just a heads up."
I responded saying yes, the ACLU is driving it but I am apart of it.
He said. "OK, you might want to think about disclosing it when you cover MPD. Someone asked me."
He added "Just a heads up."
While I haven't been secretive, I didn't think more disclosure could hurt, as long it didn't distract from the subjects I cover. I told him, "Yeah Ok, I'll think about how to do that."
He ended by saying "Be well."
He ended by saying "Be well."
Then I had an idea: I could add a disclosure to my author bios. That way it wouldn't mess with the flow of the pieces but would still be be easy to find. I started that same night:
The next morning, Blois covered the issue in his newsletter:
Let's talk about transparency, shall we?
When Blois contacted me about the lawsuit, he never said he was writing about it. Instead, he positioned himself as offering friendly advice.
Blois acts as a journalist. He might want to read this: https://www.profkrg.com/identification-first-journalism-second#:~:text=Identifying%20yourself%20as%20a%20reporter,end%20up%20published%20or%20broadcast
When Blois contacted me about the lawsuit, he never said he was writing about it. Instead, he positioned himself as offering friendly advice.
Blois acts as a journalist. He might want to read this: https://www.profkrg.com/identification-first-journalism-second#:~:text=Identifying%20yourself%20as%20a%20reporter,end%20up%20published%20or%20broadcast
As that article, by a journalism professor, notes, "Identification is the ethical and professional standard for one-on-one interviews."
It's also just common sense. I shouldn't need to explain why it's not good practice to mislead someone about the reason for a conversation.
It's also just common sense. I shouldn't need to explain why it's not good practice to mislead someone about the reason for a conversation.
And what Blois wrote was also inaccurate. By the time he wrote it, the bio had already been updated, and he knew I was working on it.
Also, to say there had been no disclosure was at best, ignoring nuance for the sake of making an argument.
Also, to say there had been no disclosure was at best, ignoring nuance for the sake of making an argument.
I feel the need to address all this because not only was a person invoking journalistic transparency without using it themselves, but they did it in a way that could at least have been interpreted as putting how I make a living in question.
When I signed on to the lawsuit, I worried that it could risk hurting my career, but I also thought it was the right thing to do. I bet the other reporters involved felt the same way.
Getting blindsided like this brought back that fear. But for now, it's back to work.
Getting blindsided like this brought back that fear. But for now, it's back to work.
