The Principle of Human Respect in Journalism
A bill recently before the Connecticut House of Representatives, HB 5408, would force state agencies to devote 50 percent of their advertising budgets – around $5 million – toward contracts with print or online publications based in Connecticut. If signed into law, this bill would create an incentive problem that would undermine journalism’s credibility and potentially give greater cover for corrupt actors in the state.
The Incentive Problem
While not directly buying influence, it is not hard to imagine a reporter or editor choosing to pursue a “safe” story rather than run the risk of losing funding for their job, being able to put food on the table, or paying their fifth highest in the nation Connecticut tax burden. After all, there is no shortage of news to write, so it would be almost impossible to prove cause and effect.
It may also come to pass that under this payola-esq system, newspaper staff becomes more likely to take calls from, report favorably on, or develop cozy relationships with the individuals holding the purse strings. Would the Department of Children and Families (DCF) shift funding to another newspaper after reading Inside Investigator’s award-winning investigation into their failures? I can’t imagine they would be excited to fund the position of a reporter who exposed the missing girls, stolen vehicles, burglaries, physical and sexual assaults, rapes, deaths, sex trafficking, injuries, and deaths happening under their watch and sometimes by members of their staff.
The proper role of journalism is to stay “above the fray” of politics and ensure citizens are informed about their communities and the institutions they interact with. This bill would tie newsroom stability to government official decision-making. I’m optimistic that most newsrooms would refuse to take money from the agencies they are writing about – leaving just those with questionable morals, advocacy journalists, or those with few other options to collect the checks.
These are not easy times for journalism and no newsroom is immune. Even a small portion of this $5 million would significantly benefit our growing newsroom at Inside Investigator. We receive hundreds of tips we don’t have the staff to report on, dozens of resumes from qualified reporters we don’t have a big enough budget to hire, and a list of creative unique marketing ideas we cannot yet fund.
Don’t get me wrong, we are blessed in many ways – but an extra six figures in revenue would allow us to better deliver on our mission to root out corruption in Connecticut.
Should journalism professionals take the money?
Even if I have the moral fortitude to ensure that coverage is not swayed by investor money (I do),
even if my newsroom qualifies for the funds (it would),
and even if my team is similarly committed to high-quality independent journalism (they are),
I still must refuse the money as a matter of principle.
Incentive problems aside – I do not want and will not accept money, like taxpayer revenue, procured through force or fraud. Agency Delegation is not an excuse for immoral action and I want no part of it. Even $0.01 from a non-consenting person is inexcusable.
Yes, this is part of my commitment to living the Principle of Human Respect in my own life, but I also held this moral position long before starting this project in January. Human Respect is a perennial idea.
I’ll defer to Foundation for Harmony and Prosperity leader Jim Babka here, as I did in week three, and his explanation of this “Terrible Exception:”
It is a point of pride that Inside Investigator journalism is voluntarily funded by people who believe in our mission. It is a point of personal honor that we do not initiate violence or diminish the wealth of others by force or fraud to get the job done.
Our method of self-enrichment is tied to the quality and value we can provide. As always, good ideas do not require force, and it is possible to do good while doing well.
