“A nation ruled by left wing mobs isn’t any better than a nation ruled by left wing mobs.” Actually more zen… And I agree. I don’t tolerate either extreme. And I’m hardly a mob. Just a girl.
Francine

I think you missed the point of the post: Levitt has so many conflicts as a “pundit” I’ve lost count. I made no critique of what he said. In fact, what he used to say I agreed with very much. The problem now is I’d like to know why he’s saying it, for whom he’s saying it, how much he’s getting paid to say it, and whether he is still a believer, honestly, in what he says.

Since I don’t see that coming any time soon, I don’t think he should be given the podium and treated with deference as a wise-sage.
Francine

PS. I find it hilarious that you compare me to Hannity and Coulter. You really don’t read what I write, do you?
fm

This issue is particularly concerning with respect to major mainstream news organizations, which the public relies on for (relatively) unbiased news, and in which the public may assume – rightfully or wrongfully – that they’d be informed of any potential conflicts of the author of an OpEd, or an interviewee in a article/audio/video writen/conducted by a journalist.

Additionally, the issue of disclosure of potential conflicts may in fact be heightened if partial disclosure – vs. no disclosure at all – is provided with respect to the op-ed author/interviewee’s significant current/former positions of employment and board service, since no disclosure at all may imply full ‘caveat emptor,’ whereas partial disclosure may be viewed by some as skewing the portrayal of the op-ed author/interviewee.

What ever happened to sunlight being the best disinfectant?

Perhaps the bastions of journalism and their lesser-known counterparts have not yet caught onto the fact that people who serve on boards of directors, or in significant ‘advisory’ roles (paid or unpaid, since an unpaid advisor’s reputation is at risk), can potentialy be as influential – and conflicted – as current or former executives of a corporation, not-for-profit, or government agency. In the post-Enron era especially, with demands on boards of directors to be more fully engaged, serving on multiple boards is akin to a full time job.

If people question how practical it is for news organizations to ‘discover’ a board position or significant ‘advisory’ position of an author of an op-ed/interviewee, there are two possible solutions: (1) do an online search to see if the author’s name is touted in any press releases of organizations who have engaged that person as an advisor or board member, and (2) ask the author of the op-ed (or interviewee) to disclose all potential conflicts when submitting the op-ed/being interviewed.

On the latter suggestion, some may believe the news organization should perform some modicum of due diligence for discovering undisclosed conflicts of interest of an op-ed author/interviewee. However, others may believe it is impractical for the news organization to engage in that type of exercise, and still others may believe that disclosing a laundry list of current and former employment and board service of an op-ed author/interviewee would be less informative for the reader than highlighting the most well-known or relevant current/former position (although ‘relevant’ can be in the eyes of the beholder).

I don’t have a degree in journalism and nor have I worked for a mainstream news organization so my comments may appear naive or ill-informed, but I hope you get some comments from professional journalists on this subject.