I totally missed this in l'Affaire Lang the other day. What a self-serving piece of righteous indignation, and triumph of auto-fellatio:
Public trust matters more than speaking fees
Apparently, those who question her actions are 'malevolent'. If we have quite reasonable questions regarding conflicts of interest, we are 'malevolent'. Unbelievable.
She's missing the point, and I assume deliberately so. Let's review, shall we?
As a journalist, you can:
- You can accept money from a corporation, or report on that corporation, but not both;
- You can have a relationship with a director of a corporation, or report on that corporation, but not both.
If you do them both, that leads to a conflict of interest. It becomes a legitimate question if the money you've accepted influences your reporting.
Whether or not your reporting was actually influenced is irrelevant. She says it wasn't -- this doesn't matter. It is the conflict itself, allowing the possibility of influence which is the problem. That possibility should never arise.
Actually, you can accept money from someone or have a relationship with someone, and still report on them, if you declare those interests in advance. She did not.
For all the talk of integrity, and how dare you question my integrity, because I say nothing happened -- a proper journalist would never have placed themselves in that position in the first place.
"Malevolent". Jesus Christ. This is high school journalism ethics, here.