At Bloomberg, the company handbook, The Bloomberg Way, states that “Bloomberg journalists may not accept speaking fees” or payment for expenses from any source. There is, however, a loophole: The policy does not cover regular Bloomberg View contributors, a spokeswoman said. Clive Crook, for instance, is a featured columnist who writes about economic policy and financial affairs and is a member of the Bloomberg View editorial board but not a full-time Bloomberg staffer; he is thus allowed to give paid speeches to financial firms and does so.
CNBC, which features wall-to-wall coverage of the financial markets, also has admirably tight standards. If star anchor Maria Bartiromo wants to speak at an event for investors, that’s fine, with permission from her bosses, but she cannot be paid. And this rule applies to events sponsored by any other business interest as well as nonprofits.
The bad news is that these institutional ethical standards are likely to become less meaningful as the number of salaried journalists continues to shrink and the ranks of independent journalists, without a permanent staff affiliation, continue to grow. These reporters are free to effectively draft their own ethics policies. In such a media universe, the ethical trajectory is apt to be downward, as experience suggests that it is corporate management that provides the hard push for strict standards.
John Harwood, of CNBC and The New York Times, can attest to the reluctance of journalists to clean up their acts on this front. Back in the mid-1990s, as a Wall Street Journal staffer, he ran for a seat on a committee of correspondents that set the standards for issuing daily press passes to congressional reporters. His sound but un-winning platform: require journalists to disclose sources of outside income, including speaking engagements. His colleagues rejected him for the position.
Speaking fees are “to me more an appearance issue than an actual conflict,” Harwood recently told me, “but nobody should be under the illusion that our credibility doesn’t need shoring up.” Harwood was the journalist, at a GOP debate back in November, who pointedly asked Newt Gingrich what he did for all that consulting dough from Freddie Mac. It’s a good thing he was the one asking that question, with his unimpeachable record of not taking money from the financial industry or other sources. He was throwing a stone, as we journalists are supposed to do in our line of work, and thankfully he was invulnerable to any thrown back at him.

The idea that anyone would pay Ferguson, the USA-is-on-the-rise/wait-no, we're-an-empire-in-decline hack any money at all to declaim his daft and ever-shifting Big Thoughts, is itself kind of the scandal.
Then again, hedgie numbskulls who think a proper British accent=intelligence probably deserve to have their collective eyes ripped out this way.
But wasn't this supposed to be a story about journalists?
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 19 Mar 2012 at 01:59 PM
Sorry, but this seems like journalism ethics 101. Speaking for fees to industry groups you cover is unethical. Gretchen Morgenson has got it right -- she'll accept paid speaking gigs at universities but if she speaks to vetted industry groups, she does it for free. End of story. I thought we already went through this back in the 1990s when the Chicago Tribune's Jim Warren smoked out and shamed prominent journalists doing paid speaking gigs. How soon we forget. Kudos to Robert Thomson of the WS Journal and to CNBC for flatly barring their reporters from doing paid speeches.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 20 Mar 2012 at 08:30 PM
Er... this all seems a bit po-faced to me - what about all the lunches, dinners, sporting events, even concerts that journos regularly attend in order to "build relationships" with execs from all industries?
#3 Posted by Brian, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 01:35 AM
There's a world of difference, Brian. As a journalist, I attend panels, business dinners, cymposiums and other events where there is a lot of fancy food and other comforts. I do it as a part of my work to see the interactions and get more context for the information I get. I can easily go without this kind of 'reward' and, in fact, often resent it and would much rather just do interviews in a cafe or on the phone.
It's a -very- different level of commitment if I'm getting real cash on a regular basis for services. For one thing, suddenly my car, the payments on my new apartment and other solid things now depend on this person/company being happy with me and not closing the money tap. Also, after such an engagement you are linked with you customer in a very business-like way: you have become a partner, not a watcher.
#4 Posted by Brazilian Rascal, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 10:43 AM
IT was OBVIOUS that she was a shill for Wall Street!!!!!!!! NO DOUBT!!!
Glamorous...NOT ..at ALL?!?!?
I hated her lisp!
#5 Posted by Pat, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 09:11 AM
This explains some of the happy talk in the news media. Corporate ownership of the same media explains the rest. Prominent rewards to individual media content creators makes it easy for all concerned to 'go along, get along'.
The outcome is an America corrupt as an Ottoman satrapy.
#6 Posted by steve from virginia, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 11:28 AM
gee - imagine a women having the cheek to do what men having been doing forever & i mean forever....
#7 Posted by susie m, CJR on Sun 25 Mar 2012 at 10:54 PM
Re: Gillian Tett's book Fool's Gold "skewered the financial industry"
Hardly. I found it to be a hagiography of JPMorgan.
#8 Posted by Knute, CJR on Sat 9 Jun 2012 at 12:18 AM
This article is interesting but doesn't go far enough.
Tett and the entire FT, as much of the financial press in London and New York, have been more than friendly to the financial-industry types who pay their speakers fees, buy their ads, give them scoops, write their big-name guest essays, make them feel important.
Tett and many of the other people in the article have editorialized again and again for maximum bailouts and bazookas (still doing it re the euro), ventriloquising their hedgie and other Wall Street friends who love nothing better than to offload their bad paper and get a good ride on asset price inflation. Of course the FT speaks for the City. Duh.
#9 Posted by scott, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 04:39 PM