Last week we ran a short news item about a syndication deal for a little blog called TechCrunch.

We pointed out how odd it seemed that the Washington Post, one of the nation's most trusted and revered newspapers, would run stories written by an ex-lawyer who admits he may advise or invest in companies that are covered on his site.

In journalistic circles, that's what we call a conflict of interest.

Admittedly, we dripped a little snark, though, which prompted a Tourettes-like reaction from TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington and plenty of colorful comments from readers.

All in a day's work. We were happy to let the matter go until Arrington said he planned to organize a "Wired burning party" because he hadn't gotten a "response" from Wired. (We're not sure who he tried to contact, or what sort of "response" he was expecting to "Fuck you," but whatever.)

So we sent him our thoughts:

"I know that you disclose your investments, which is fine, but the very fact that you invest in companies you may write about goes against the longstanding set of ethical standards that have governed newspapers for decades," we wrote last week.

And we didn't hear back.

We threw the question out to the Washington Post. Does Arrington's practice of investing in companies he may write about break with the newspaper's ethical policy? We contacted the ombudsman, the business editor and a company spokesperson, but we haven't gotten a response. We're happy to update this post if and when someone there sees fit to reply.

In the meantime, here is an old copy of the Washington Post's Code of Standards and Ethics, which clearly states that the company has pledged to "avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business."

We asked Peter Sussman, who serves on the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists, for his take on the situation.

"The one thing that newspapers still have over new online outlets is the brand, the name and the standards. They've told readers that by the mere presence of a story on the Washington Post, that it's been through a rigorous analysis or edit and it is up to their standards. The assumption is that unless you hear otherwise, the content you see in the Post has gone through that ethical screening."

Just to reiterate:

We have nothing against Arrington. We don't think journalism is some sacred activity that should be studied and practiced by a select few who are chosen by an even more select few. We heart blogs.

But, this we do believe: There are some basic ethical standards that should be followed when you are a journalist. And that includes avoiding conflicts of interest.

The trust imperative of a news organization – or anybody who considers him or herself a journalist – is pretty straightforward: Find information, report it accurately, leave yourself (or your investments) out of the story.

Photo: Flickr/d_b_solis

See Also: