How Is My Site?
View Results
You would have been hard pressed to have missed former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff over the past week, appearing on about every news talk show in America about the need for full body scanners in the wake of the Christmas airplane bombing attempt. What he had repeatedly failed to disclose, of course, was that he had a financial interest in a company that manufactures the devices (the company being a client of the Chertoff Group, his consulting firm).
This lack of full disclosure by Chertoff was dutifully reported by what’s left of the what used to be called the Washington Post, in a prominent article on New year’s day in the front section of the paper. I assume that Mr. Chertoff is a sincere supporter of this full-body scanning equipment, but some sort of disclaimer when touting the machines would have been the professional way to handle such a conflict.
What I find just as interesting is how the Post handled the issue. The article, on page A7, is headlined, “Chertoff accused of abusing public trust by touting body scanners.” It goes on to report on the dozens of media interviews in which Chertoff neglected to tell any of the reporters about his financial interests.
Now jump ahead in the same New Year’s Day Post, into a front-and-center op-ed by Chertoff (page A15), headlined, “Plugging a security gap,” and touting the full-body scanner. You will look in vain in the body of the op-ed for a disclaimer about the very same conflict that merited the Post’s own critical article. If you dive down into the fine print following the end of the op-ed, in smaller font describing Chertoff’s credentials, you will finally find a reference to his consulting group “whose clients include a manufacturer of body-imaging screening machines.”
Now, I’m not a believer that it is always hypocritical to represent a position that you might have a financial interest in. I think readers make their won judgments and are fully able to give opinion leaders the benefit of the doubt if they disclose their interests. What I find remarkable is that the Post’s editors don’t even seem to bother reading their own paper any more. How can you make a big deal out of Chertoff’s meager disclosure of his conflict, and then become his enabler just a few pages later? Have they just given up hope of survival and quit putting in a full day’s work? Just another sign that the once great newspaper is a shadow of itself– a journalistic train wreck slowly sinking further. It’s getter hard to watch.
Loading ...