Gov. Romney has his own paid columnist $10,000

[donsu]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/04/08/national/a100907D70.DTL

Boston Columnist Gets Gov't Contract

A columnist for the Boston Herald has been awarded a contract worth up to $10,000 from the administration of Gov. Mitt Romney to promote the governor's environmental policies.

Charles D. Chieppo began working with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs on Thursday. The contract calls for him to assist agency officials in writing op-ed pieces and internal documents.

Chieppo writes a general weekly column for the Herald, where he is paid per article. He told The Associated Press on Friday that his request to perform the outside work was fully vetted by the state ethics commission and the Herald.

"The issue, as I understand it, is disclosure," he said. "I have fully disclosed everything to everyone involved."

A Herald spokeswoman, Gwen Gage, said Chieppo won't be allowed to publish anything related to his new job in the Romney administration. She said Chieppo had disclosed the contract to editorial page editor Rachelle Cohen, who decided to allow him to continue his column so long as he avoids topics on which he's advising the state.
-snip-
---------------------------------


salesmen

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. On the face of it, it doesn't sound unethical to me

He's paid by the piece, and he would be writing separate documents for the Romney administration. This has been disclosed. The key thing is that there is a statement in an obvious part of his work for Romney that states that it was paid for by that group. If there is, then it seems ethical to me.

However, if he writes an op-ed that appears in the newspaper and does NOT have this disclaimer, that would be a problem.

[donsu]

2. did you wonder why a state agency needed to write "op-ed" pieces?

and needed to hire a columnist to help them do it better?

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. He is a professional writer, it's what he does for a living, and he is

paid by the piece. The newspaper pays him separately for each column he writes, he's not a salaried employee. I'd say the Romney people in charge of PR liked his style and viewpoint and wanted to employ him because they thought he would do a good job writing pieces for them that would put across their viewpoints.

If these were published as an Op-Ed WITHOUT the disclosure that the writer was paid by the Romney funds, that would be a clear breach of ethics.

But if what he produces for them IS clearly labeled as being paid for by them, he'd be acting as a professional writer and what was produced would be an acknowledged advertisement. That wouldn't bother me.

Ethical problems would also arise if he wrote things NOT paid for by the Romney people that were on the same subject areas and with the same point of view that they espoused in their arrangement with him. If, say, the Romney people want him to praise a particular environmental program of theirs in a paid article, then he should stay away from writing any newspaper-funded articles on the same subject area.

There's a gray area of conflict of interest if he writes anything else to do with the Romney administration's policies, even in areas he doesn't cover for them. It's true that he would have an incentive to stay on their good side and that might slant his writing. This IS a problem. So can he write columns for the newspaper that DON'T have to do with Romney policies? If he can, then that would be okay with me. But anything that impinges on Romney policies would be suspect.

[donsu]

8. but should state agencies write op-eds?

op means opinion

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. There would need to be equal space given to other viewpoints

and it does open up ethical issues. It's tricky territory. If they paid for the column space and it was clearly labeled as an advertisement, then the question would be where did the money come from? It should not be taxpayer money.

Very tricky territory. It could not be an "ordinary" op-ed, which is understood to be the person's own opinion. So I would want to know more about how they planned to handle the whole thing.

If it was clearly marked as a paid advertisement and NOT paid for by the state but by a private group under proper legal control, that part would be OK with me. But then what about his newspaper articles? He would have to stay away from all subjects related to administration policies, otherwise he would be inevitably biased to please his client.

[PeaceProgProsp]

4. He has a financial interest in ensuring Romney's success.

His newspaper column has now gone from personal opinion to advertisement for Romney.

Newspapers typically have to distinguish between advertisements and journalism.

They're making the distinction now by terminating their contract with the reporter rather than by boxing off his column and printing "possibly a paid advertisement" above it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. If his Romney-paid articles have a statement of funding source

that is easily seen, then they're OK - they're marked as advertisements. It's his newspaper-paid articles that are the question. He would have to stay away from anything to do with Romney policies - his work on those subjects would be suspect because he wants to stay on the Romney administration's good side so they keep employing him. If he sticks to columns that DON'T impinge on Romney policies, then that's OK with me.

$10,000, the maximum to be paid to him by the Romney people, is far from a living wage. He is a professional writer and needs to find clients who will pay him to write for them. The trick is to make what he produces for the newspaper clearly marked as an advertisement when that is what it is, and for hiim to stay away from Romney policies otherwise.

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. I don't think the newspaper should give space to

either advertisements for Romney (unless Romney is paying the paper for the space) or "Romeny-free zones."

Columnists should be free to write about the issues of the day. By paying this guy, Romney either (1) ensures that he'll get good coverage if the guy does write about politics, or (2) ensures that, at the very least, there will be no criticism of Romney if the paper prints the guy's columns subject to the rule that he doesn't write about Romney.

To hell with that. Get a columnist who isn't compromised and will write about the important issues without any suggestion of bias.

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. Yes, if it's writing paid for by Romney, it's an advertisement and should

be paid for by Romney funds (not tax money) as such.

This writer is not a salaried employee of the paper. He does basically piece work to make a living, and I doubt it's a very rich one. As long as it's clearly marked as an advertisement and he doesn't write other columns on Romney policies, I don't see why he should be forbidden to do this. The paper can have someone else, not paid by Romney, write columns on political issues.

This isn't like the huge bribes secretly paid to columnists to boost partisan talking points whiile pretending it's their independent opinion. This man has disclosed what he is doing and so far, it looks like it can be done ethically in my opinion. Will require care not to cross lines, but it can be done.

[MollyStark]

14. Everything else he writes is suspect

It is unethical no matter what he writes about. As long as his topics are political you can assume he is pimping for Romney or republicans.

[BillZBubb]

3. Shame on the Herald editors and management.

This is totally unethical. Just because they won't publish articles by the author on issues he pimps for Romney, that doesn't wash the taint of bias off of him.

It is unethical because the writer has a monetary incentive to stay on the Gov's good side on all issues, if he wants to keep his pimp gig.

Oh, that "liberal" media. It's sinking ever more into the morass of right wing "values".

[PeaceProgProsp]

6. That's not a good solution because:

If they just tell him he can't write about romney, then that means that a few inches of column space where there could be criticism of romney will now definitely not have it.

There's a third dimension to this:

During the presidential election, Michelle ______, the NPR host, was told that she couldn't talk about Kerry because her husband was working for the campaign.

What that does is create a vacuum where listeners would be expecting a commentary on Kerry from the lead host, but, instead, they hear som ething about the latest Nora Jones CD or about Marilyn Robinson's latest book. The absence of commentary is just as damaging -- especially since listeners were never told that they weren't talking about Kerry because of the host's husband's work for the campaign.

[saltpoint]

10. Didn't know about this story, so I appreciate your posting it.

Mitt Romney continues to distinguish himself as a total asshole.

Let's get him out of the governor's chair in Massachusetts and lock him in a dungeon someplace where he can never escape.

Is that legal?

[gratuitous]

13. An ethical newspaper would fire the writer

After all, you're either writing for the paper or you're not. Exceptions are sometimes made for syndicated writers and writers who are working on books, but I've never heard of a writer getting paid by the government AND keeping his "day job."

But then, I'm talking about an ethical newspaper, one that observes professional standards and practices. This is the Boston Herald.

Anyone remember the reporters who were fired a couple of years ago, one for marching against the invasion of Iraq and another who marched on behalf of women's rights? They were participating in these activities on their own time, yet their newspapers fired them. Of course, those were so-called "liberal" issues, not parroting right wing talking points, so it wasn't allowed.