Some Guesses about Journalism and Corruption

  • Institute for Public Relations: International Index of Bribery for News Coverage. Bribery of the media, according to the study, is most likely to occur in China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Pakistan. By contrast, those countries with the best ratings for avoiding such practices are Finland (first place); Denmark, New Zealand and Switzerland (tied for second place); and Norway. Germany, Iceland, and the United Kingdom tied for fourth place. The United States had the fifth best rating, along with Canada and three other countries.

  • Studies like this make me very uneasy. The methodology uses all kinds of inferences that might or might not indicate journalists’ susceptabilty to bribes, but none was squarely on point.

    The report is actually pretty interesting in what it does measure. The researchers should have given it a different name instead of attaching a flamboyant word — bribery — to something less criminal.


    Posted by: on October 8, 2003 09:23 AM

    The US in general may not have much media
    corruption, but here in Silly Valley, we
    have got the Mercury News.

    One minor, amusing thing is how the “best
    places to work” list appears to be sold to
    the highest bidder. How come they always
    seem to have layoffs after making the list?

    Less amusing is the fact that the Mercury is
    acting as a corporate shill in favor of all
    kinds of outsourcing and immigration scams
    which threaten to prevent any US citizens
    from ever working in high tech again. Their
    cheerful anecdotes about this problem, and
    their constant stories about how the recession
    is now over (so don’t worry about H1-B) are
    almost certainly being written by lobbyists
    for the ITAA, with the reporters providing a
    spell check.

    I wonder is they get paid in cash, or in
    stock options.

    -dave chapman

    Posted by: John Fleck on October 8, 2003 10:48 AM

    One of the advantages of getting your information from the mainstream media rather than the blogosphere is that the mainstream media has well-established standards involving the nature of evidence that is required to support assertions. This is needed both to fulfill our ethical obligations and to avoid getting sued for libel.

    Dave Chapman asserts, without evidence, that Mercury-News journalists are paid for what they write. That’s the type of allegation that, without evidence to back it up, might result in a libel suit against me were I to have made it – a wonderful way in which the law provides a helpful check against journalistic excess. I wonder, Dave, if you could provide some evidence to back up your rather strong allegation?

    Posted by: on October 10, 2003 08:35 PM

    Dan, have you never attached a flamboyant word to a mudane article’s headline?

    Posted by: on October 10, 2003 08:35 PM

    Dan, have you never attached a flamboyant word to a mudane article’s headline?

    This entry was posted in Archives. Bookmark the permalink.