I thought it was pretty obvious that journalists should not have conflicts of interests, real or perceived. This means avoiding some pretty common and, in most cases, pretty innocuous things. For example, I’m a registered independent, I limit my charitable donations to non-advocacy groups and I’ve turned down positions with boards. Obviously, I don’t accept gifts or payments from anyone but my boss.

But some “journalists” don’t have the same standards. This discrepancy has created a major and justified stink in the comment section of an article on this website between two area bloggers, John Frenaye and Paul Foer. I know both of them but neither well. Besides running a blog, Foer freelances for The Capital, penning a column that appears in the paper and the website on Wednesdays. But his blog though is completely independent from The Capital and is Foer’s work and Foer’s work alone.

The stink at hand is Foer’s most recent column in The Capital  where he criticized an attack ad sent by County Council candidate Chris Trumbauer. But what Foer didn’t say was that he received advertising money from Trumbauer’s opponent, Chuck Ferrar, to run a banner ad on his blog. I was able to find $350 Ferrar’s campaign finance reports that went to Foer. For what it’s worth, Frenaye’s blog has an advertisement for Trumbauer.

On the comment boards Frenaye argued that Foer should have disclosed this payment; it makes it appear like Foer is Ferrar’s hired gun and he’s just criticizing Trumbauer because Ferrar has bought him off. I agree, kind of. I have no reason to believe or suspect that Foer is providing one type of commentary in exchange for money; I don’t see an explicit quit pro quo; it was money for an ad. However, I think that this situation creates the perception that Foer has a conflict of interest which, for people who aim to provide a valuable public service, can be just as troublesome as a real one.

I spoke to Foer on the phone at length. He said that the payments from Ferrar have nothing to do with the message or tone of his most recent column; if Ferrar used attack ads he would put him in the crosshairs too. In fact, if Ferrar goes negative he’ll write about it. He said he sends politicians a statement that explains that even if they advertise with him he’s still free to write about them, sometimes negatively

He e-mailed me a copy. Here’s a part of it:

… We promise to cover your campaign as completely and as fairly as possible whether you advertise or not--and we are already doing it every day for candidates of all parties--as long as they send us information!!…

Foer said he never thought about Ferrar's money while writing his column and that he separates the financial side of his blog from the commentary and coverage he provides online and elsewhere. One doesn’t influence the other, he said.

“In my mind there’s a huge separation. It never even crossed my mind. I never even thought about it, that I had an advertisement from Chuck Frerrar,” he said.

But he also said he wasn’t transparent by omitting this payment.

“I’m extremely transparent. That’s what I do. What do I do that’s not transparent except for this one thing? Mea culpa,” he said.

Through the back and forth of The Capital’s comment section, Foer argued that it’s obvious he received money from Ferrar’s campaign to anyone who visits his blog. This is right, but again, even more wrong. Foer made the erroneous assumption that everyone who reads his Wednesday column in print or elsewhere will go to his blog, see his advertisers and rightly conclude he has received money from Ferrar. Clearly, not everyone who reads the print version is going to go to Foer’s publication. As such, not everyone is going to have that insight and they aren’t going to know about Foer’s situation.

He said that there’s no difference between how his business operates and how The Capital runs.

But he’s wrong.

Yes, I work for a publication that is substantially funded by advertisements. However, there is a major difference between the business models of a newsroom and a blog. In The Capital’s case, there’s a clear partition between the news and advertising staff. I have no idea what goes on in that part of the building, receive no commission, nor any input, suggestions, nudging, prodding or any other contact from advertising staff. I have no direct benefit from the sale of any single advertisement. This gives me the editorial freedom to write what needs to be written in a professional manner without having to worry about making an advertiser angry. I wear one hat, “staff writer.” Foer wears them all, reporter, ad salesman, accountant, editor, publisher, copy editor, web developer and on and on and on and on.

Foer said it’s impossible for bloggers to run a publication and somehow make money without running into conflicts of interests. They’re small operations and often times contributors wear several hats. In Foer’s case, he wears all of them.

“The implication here is that I’m going to sell my soul out for $350. Not a very good assumption … I’m trying to earn a little money in what I do and I’m not compromising my ethics while doing it,” he said.

While he has conflicts readers can still take his commentary for what it's worth if he were to disclose his conflicts. For example, in this case he could have written something like "Also, to be clear, I've accepted a $350 ad from Ferrar that runs on my blog."

I decided to write about this conflict now because it isn’t the first time Foer has crossed ethical boundaries and created conflicts, all avoidable. For one, he served on Mayor Josh Cohen’s transition team in the transportation committee. This raises questions about his judgment when he covers the mayor. Foer pointed out that he has criticized the mayor. That’s true. However, there are people who certainly don’t think that Foer has been critical enough. To his credit, Foer previously disclosed in his columns that he worked for Cohen. But to his fault, that notice has since stopped even while his coverage continues.

While Foer could have avoided this conflict by turning down Cohen’s offer, Foer said he accepted it because he’s a transportation “expert” who has a valuable skill to provide the city.

Also, Foer has mislead people about where he lives – his column used to say he was a resident of Eastport even after he moved out of the neighborhood. I confronted Foer months ago about this outright inaccuracy. He told me that it didn’t matter where he says he lives; he’s not running for public office. That’s a red herring. In a way he’s right – journalists, unlike politicians, are not elected to represent a defined geographical jurisdiction – but even more, he’s wrong. He doesn’t live in Eastport and he shouldn’t tell tens of thousands of readers that he does. What he said is simply not true and is a major major major ethical breach. When I spoke to him today Foer gave two accounts about why he continued to say he lives in Eastport. First, he said that decided for “personal reasons” not to mention that he left. Later he said the matter never crossed his mind. I don’t know how you could decide to do something for “personal reasons” when the matter never even crossed your mind.

Nothing has appeared in his column or elsewhere correcting this error.

Foer, who has a master’s degree in journalism, said he has completed courses in journalism ethics. Based on my knowledge, training and experience, colleges and universities teach the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, a series of guidelines that describe how journalists should behave. It says journalists must, amongst other things:

—Be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

Foer has violated several of these guidelines. He wasn't honest when he misrepresented something that all people of sound mind know: where they live. He didn’t avoid a conflict by turning down an opportunity to be on Cohen’s transition team. He has testified at city council meetings and hearings, compromising integrity and credibility, Likewise he hasn’t shunned political involvement. He hasn’t disclosed conflicts, avoidable or otherwise. And now, he’s come under suspicion of giving an advertiser special treatment.

I really don’t like writing about these things but I’m ethically bound to do it, I’ve done it before and I’m upset that I’ll probably have to do it again.

But I’m obligated. As the SPJ said, journalists should also:

— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.