• 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.