Question: When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?

Answer: When it involves a newspaper.

The New York Times' Bill Keller, in an artful reply to that paper's public editor, helpfully explains that they have very wide latitude to define for themselves what is a "conflict of interest" and to decide whether it matters. Never mind that that latitude opens a hole so wide a garbage truck could drive through it.

But that's the New York Times. What about the local paper?

A few weeks ago when citizens made an unsuccessful effort to persuade the Midland, Texas, City Council not to raise taxes someone attempted to suggest a collusion among some of the City Council members and the Midland Reporter Telegram's Editorial Board due to the Editorial Board's published position which seemed to parrot what some of the Council members were saying. The Editorial Board responded with a public beat down of that citizen while waving the banner of government watchdog.

Some might find it suspicious that the head of the Editorial Board, Dave Wedel, was also the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at the very time that the Chamber of Commerce President appeared before the City Council at a hearing to express the Chamber's fear of losing out on a share of some of that tax money. Bob Cambell described it like this:

Chamber of Commerce President Rob Cunningham protested a possible $100,000 reduction to the Chamber’s Convention & Visitors Bureau if the sports complex is put under professional management.

Being the coward that I am and having watched the aforementioned beat down I'm certainly not going to accuse the head of the Editorial Board of a conflict of interest. If there are any dots to connect someone else will have to do it. The story template is probably that Mr. Wedel's cross-board membership doesn't cloud his judgment but makes him smarter than the rest of us. Don't agree? Re-read New York Times' Bill Keller's refresher course on how journalists decide what's fair and how insider connections provide a "measure of sophistication ... that someone with no connections would lack."

We would love to give Mr. Wedel "Three cheers for being a government watchdog!" But he has only given us an opportunity to say "Hip, Hip ... uh, ok, maybe we can give you the benefit of the doubt."

Comments

[Stewart Doreen]

Hey George,

Enjoy your blog. Will disagree with two points. The original editorial suggested the process will work better if both sides (Council and public) does its homework. I don't understand how that would be a bad thing. It certainly didn't represent a beatdown.
The Reporter-Telegram also said, in an editorial, it was right for the 4B to address the issue of increased revenues at the complex, even if that means making changes.
Not sure that was necessarily a chamber-friendly stance.

http://www.mywesttexas.com/news/opinion/article_7a52f197-f6ea-56ea-bc8e-96829eb9053f.html

[Geo]

Editorial said "It's never easy to push a tax increase under any kind of economy, but current conditions make it reasonable to look at raising taxes." And you are right, it also said go do homework.

The beat down was the "Cahoots" editorial.

As for the 4B editorial, I'm glad you guys can go against the boss on occasion.

[Geo]

Hmm. Just revisited the linked MRT editorials, and one thing missing is any evidence that the editorial board did any budget analysis, i.e., homework, of its own.