Beyond clickbait and commerce

Denis Muller
does a declaration that the journalism involved is inseparable from
advertising content.
For the purposes of this article, the term ‘news-like content’ will
be used to define these categories of material. They are news-like
because although the exact mix of advertising, promotional and
independent news content in any one of them is unknowable,
the presentational techniques commonly used – story structure,
language, typography and layout – create the impression that the
content is news alone.
These developments mean that conflict of interest as an ethical
problem in journalism today is of an order of magnitude greater
than it was in the pre-digital era, when it was seen as something
to be resisted rather than absorbed. Being vigilant against it was a
permanent feature of newsroom management (Tanner et al. 2005:
190).
In this disorienting period of rapid change, discussion of an
ethical concept such as conflict of interest might usefully begin
with an exercise in which we get our bearings by referring to
relevant definitions, principles and assumptions which underpin
conventional thinking on the issue as it relates to the profession of
journalism.
Conflict of interest defined
The conflict-of-interest concept has deep roots, even if the term
itself is relatively new. The New Testament asserts, in the words of
Matthew 6: 24, that no man can serve two masters, and in those of
Luke 16: 13, that a man cannot serve both God and mammon. This
describes one facet of the problem, that of a plurality of principles
(Peters and Handschin 2012: 4). Another facet is summed up in
the everyday phrase that no one should be judge and jury in his
own cause. This imports ideals of independence and impartiality
grounded in utilitarianism and contained in journalism codes of
ethics globally. Where the subject is news-like content, both facets
are relevant. Wasserman’s (2009: 229-241) definition incorporates
key elements that seem particularly relevant:
Conflict of interest comprises a variety of instances where
undeclared obligations or loyalties exist that might plausibly
intervene between journalists and journalism organisations and
the public they principally serve.
Wasserman identifies three characteristics: lack of disclosure
(‘undeclared obligations or loyalties’), plausibility (in the sense
that there is a rational basis for suspecting a conflict), and an
organisational as well as an individual dimension. He has also
drawn attention to the concept of competing loyalties (2010: 253).
96 Copyright 2016-2/3. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 13, No 2/3 2016