• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    And instantly create a conflict of interest that undermines your reporting.

      • 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        But what about when the share price reaches $6 1? Then you’ve made a whole dollar. Who knows? You could make $2.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a conflict of interest to report on something you have a financial stake in? Just because the stock is at $60 doesn’t mean you wouldn’t profit if it went to $80.

        • yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          Such a small amount of money is easily explainable in the journalistic report. In fact, I did so right now. “In order to gain access to this event and be allowed the provelidge to ask follow up questions, this reporter was forced to buy one stock of Shell at $60 a share. I did my best to not let this influence my journalism in any way.”

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s proper that a journalist should put a disclaimer in their article, stating the conflict of interest. That does not mean the conflict of interest is suddenly done away with - it’s still there.

            Having a conflict of interest also doesn’t mean the person cannot be trusted. However buying shares in the company you’re reporting on would be introducing a significant doubt that isn’t really worth the minimal benefits they’d get from attending shareholder meetings.

            • yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              My guy buying one share of a company to gain access to a stockholder only event is not a conflict of interest. Think about it critically for any length of time and you’ll realize this.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mate, it’s called a conflict of interest. By owning a share in the company, you have an interest in the company’s success, and therefore an inherent bias in any reporting you do. You might not act on that bias, but it’s still there - and most importantly for journalists it’s perceptible to any and every reader.

                I’m sure most journalists would not let it influence them. However the issue is it affects the quality of their writing towards their audience. It’s not about whether or not they will act on their bias, but their appearance of bias.

                Ultimately, it’s just not worth the hassle. Otherwise we would already have journalists doing this - just because Shell are no longer letting journalists into shareholder meetings doesn’t mean it’s a new thing.

                You’re not arguing against me thinking this isn’t a good idea, you’re arguing against the entire journalism industry thinking that.

                • yeather@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not a conflict of interest if you buy a share as part of the investigation, literally I have no clue how to tell you this in any other way. If you need to own a share to ask questions, it is only proper to buy a share and ask the questions. You are the reason journalism is dying.

                  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The reason you buy it does not matter. Owning a share in a business you’re reporting on is a de facto conflict of interest. You merely saying it isn’t does not make your statement true. Coming up with excuses for why it was bought doesn’t either. A good journalist will at least still declare their conflicts of interest, but that declaration does not dispell it.

                    You are the reason journalism is dying.

                    You are being an ass.

          • taladar@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unless their stock price drops to $0 or doubles it is not even $60 but just a small fraction of that.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If only reporters had some way of telling readers about their potential conflicts of interest. Like, I don’t know, telling readers you had to buy shares to participate and report on it? But that just seems to crazy to exist…

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say it would invalidate their reporting, but even with a disclaimer the conflict of interest is still there and still undermines the article. A report without the conflict of interest is always better.

        Is that really worth it, just to go to their shareholder meeting and try to turn it into a mini press conference? I think most professional journalists would say no.

        American oil and gas companies ExxonMobil and Chevron also don’t hold press conferences

        I mean, I’m sure they’ve thought about this with regards to these other companies, yet we don’t have journalists buying shares to report on them. Maybe I’ve not hit the nail with their exact reasoning, but whatever their reasoning is no one in the industry seems to think it’s a good idea.