In a Cornell Daily Sun article today, Andy Guess writes about the recent co-sponsored reporting trip to China. His main complaint is that by sharing funding between Cornell and the Sun, a state of co-dependence is created which might influence objectivity:

Ideally, of course, Cornell would pay for none of the trip. A newspaper sharing costs with the subject of its coverage is an unusual arrangement, to say the least, and would never happen under normal circumstances.

To me it seems an arrangement of convenience. In today’s global services-oriented world, someone needs something a company can provide, so they contract it out. Rawlings needed a Sun reporter to follow the story, so Cornell found one from the Sun, and cosponsored them. It’s about the results, which are much important than the financial means used to obtain them.

Guess goes on to explain why the financial arrangement disturbs him:

Because the most important issue of all is the one fingered back in 2003 by The Sun’s editorial board: objectivity. The Beijing coverage simply begs the question of what sort of access was being granted to Geng, and whether she was being influenced by her handlers from the Cornell administration.

To me this seems like an entirely different issue than the financial issue. We have two facts:

1) Cornell paid for this China trip (in part)
2) The reporting was about Cornell figures

To me, this doesn’t imply that Cornell would have the power to block access to the Sun reporter. And more importantly, when you look at this, you should first ask, “What incentives would Cornell have in sponsoring a Sun reporter.” At this point, you see that Cornell and the Sun’s desires are united and synonymous. All they both want is to have good coverage of the groundbreaking educational agreements made in China. So where is the incentive for deception?

3 Responses to “Don’t Follow The Money”

1. andy guess says:

   11/22/2005 at 12:05 pm

   I see your point. But three things:

   (1) Julie was being whisked from place to place, seeing what she was meant to see, talking to whom she was given access, reporting what she was meant to report. If The Sun and Cornell’s interests were aligned, they were aligned only in the most superficial form of journalism — public relations or, worse, stenography.

   (2) What if Julie managed to find out, from an anonymous source, what happened behind one of the closed-door meetings between Rawlings and Chinese officials? Would Cornell suddenly revoke her funding? That’s a pretty huge incentive to stay on a tight leash. It’s also a major problem with college newspapers’ limited spending ability, and an argument to stay local.

   (3) Newspapers are fundamentally about trust, and these days, it’s waning. When readers already assume that papers and reporters are in bed with their sources, this arrangement only makes The Sun’s reporting look suspect — and not just the stories on China.

   Reply
2. Elliott Back says:

   11/22/2005 at 3:39 pm

   While it’s true that “follow the money” is a good way to spot potential corruption and conflict of interest, it’s more important to look for incentives that would motivate that behavior. It’s important, of course, to speculate about impropriety, but if you can find no evidence of any, and no motive, it’s not worth saying except as a footnote.

   Reply
3. JhonGalindo says:

   2/28/2009 at 5:13 am

   Nice Article. thanks For The Interesting information. I really enjoy it.

   Reply