PressEthic

The Business Section of The New York Times made brief mention today of the possible ethical conflict raised by talk show host Charlie Rose, who is co-hosting a dinner in honor of H. Lee Scott Jr., previous guest to Rose's talk show and Wal-Mart CEO.

PBS aired the Charlie Rose interview of Scott at the beginning of August, in which Rose highlighted Scott's efforts to create an environmental initiative at Wal-Mart. The dinner, in Scott's honor, is being thrown in New York City, the article stated, in order to recognize his environmental work. According to the article,

Mr. Rose’s name appeared as a host, alongside that of Bob Wright, chief executive of NBC Universal; James L. Dolan, chief executive of Cablevision Systems; and a dozen other prominent figures from the New York media and financial industries.

Michael Getler, PBS ombudsman, urged Rose not to participate, citing a possible perceived conflict of interest. The article included,

“Don’t do this,” was Mr. Getler’s unsolicited advice to Mr. Rose. “As the host of one of the most respected and popular public affairs shows distributed on public broadcasting,” he said, “ you have an obligation not to do anything that could be seen by viewers as even a possible conflict of interest, or as diminishing the integrity or credibility of public broadcasting.”

Is this how it must go, then? Journalists must sacrifice letting their own personal convictions be known in order to appear objective and thus convey integrity? Rose, however, disagreed. The article cited his rebuttal:

“If I go somewhere and do something that is an appreciation of somebody I have interviewed in the past, that is not a conflict of interest,” he said in a telephone interview, noting that he has interviewed 20,000 people. “I have no relationship with Wal-Mart,” he said. “I did one show with Wal-Mart. Period.”

Mr. Rose agreed to be a dinner host, he said, because “Harvey Weinstein, who is a friend of mine, called and asked me to do this as a favor. I said I would do it for him as long as I do not have to do anything.” A spokeswoman for the Weinstein Company said that “to suggest there is anything improper about him lending his name to an event honoring someone’s efforts to save the environment is just plain silly.”

It may be true that Rose has no ulterior motive for throwing this dinner party, however, he must at least acknowledge the inevitable response that his actions may cause, mustn't he?

As journalists, we are expected to adhere to a standard that is difficult to uphold. We are constantly questioned on the grounds of ethics, and it seems at times impossible to maintain a positive perception of us by the viewing/reading public. Is there a conflict of interest here? Is Charlie Rose, in effect, doing a favor to Scott because of the interview he landed over the summer? Or is Rose simply supporting the actions of Scott, which Rose deems worthy of praise? Is it necessary for journalists to refrain from any activity that might seem questionable, even if it prevents us from making what might be important statements of personal belief?

Once again, the blurry line between being human and being a journalist is problematic. Can we be journalists and, God-forbid, be human too? It seems, unfortunately, that the answer is no.