You are here
We Can Learn Something About "Ingratiation and Access" from Journalists
Monday, April 7th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
The subject of Margaret
Sullivan's Public Editor column in yesterday's New York Times
is the corrupting influence of journalists getting too close to
their sources. In other words, in the language of C.J. Roberts,
"ingratiation and access." With respect to local government ethics,
the subject would be the corrupting influence of relationships
between local officials and those seeking special benefits from the
local government.
The most relevant quote in the column comes from Jesse Eisinger, a financial reporter for ProPublica (I wrote about one of his columns just two months ago). He constantly reminds himself why sources share information with him: "It's not because I'm good looking or a nice person. They're all talking to push an agenda."
When high-level local officials develop relationships with contractor, developer, or grantee, it's important that both parties to the relationship recognize that, although there may be aspects of authentic friendship, the relationship began and is being maintained either (1) because the official is useful to the other's agenda, or (2) because the other is useful to the official, in terms of campaign contributions and perks. Or both. This is no different than relationships formed in business or journalism. But it is more problematic in government and journalism, because the public is involved, and all it sees is the agenda, the perks, and the campaign contributions, not the aspects of authentic friendship.
Sullivan notes that, a few years ago, the Times stopped attending the White House correspondents' dinner, where journalists party for days with politicians and, most likely, lobbyists. The Washington bureau chief is quoted as having said, at the time, "It had evolved into a very odd, celebrity-driven event that ... sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers, like we are all in it together and it is all a game."
If journalists have reason to believe that their audience wants more from them than schmoozing with politicians, why do politicians believe that their constituents think it's okay for them to schmoozing with lobbyists and others seeking special benefits from or regulated by the government? And if journalists who are attuned to conflicts of interest believe this is corrupting for the Fourth Estate, why is it that the Supreme Court majority, which should be highly attuned to conflicts of interest, believes that this is absolutely okay for the First Estate?
Local officials do the same thing the Washington journalists do. They frequently party with contractors, developers, grantees, professional lobbyists, and the like — at charity events, club events, sports events, political party events, campaign events, and private events. The public sees this and assumes that this is the way things are, that these are the people who matter most to local officials. "Ingratiation and access" may not be quid pro quo corruption, but it definitely sends the wrong signal to the public and is a central, perhaps the central, part of the ongoing reciprocal relationships that make local government appear to be run in the interests of those in office, those with whom they have special relationships, and those seeking special benefits or being regulated.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The most relevant quote in the column comes from Jesse Eisinger, a financial reporter for ProPublica (I wrote about one of his columns just two months ago). He constantly reminds himself why sources share information with him: "It's not because I'm good looking or a nice person. They're all talking to push an agenda."
When high-level local officials develop relationships with contractor, developer, or grantee, it's important that both parties to the relationship recognize that, although there may be aspects of authentic friendship, the relationship began and is being maintained either (1) because the official is useful to the other's agenda, or (2) because the other is useful to the official, in terms of campaign contributions and perks. Or both. This is no different than relationships formed in business or journalism. But it is more problematic in government and journalism, because the public is involved, and all it sees is the agenda, the perks, and the campaign contributions, not the aspects of authentic friendship.
Sullivan notes that, a few years ago, the Times stopped attending the White House correspondents' dinner, where journalists party for days with politicians and, most likely, lobbyists. The Washington bureau chief is quoted as having said, at the time, "It had evolved into a very odd, celebrity-driven event that ... sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers, like we are all in it together and it is all a game."
If journalists have reason to believe that their audience wants more from them than schmoozing with politicians, why do politicians believe that their constituents think it's okay for them to schmoozing with lobbyists and others seeking special benefits from or regulated by the government? And if journalists who are attuned to conflicts of interest believe this is corrupting for the Fourth Estate, why is it that the Supreme Court majority, which should be highly attuned to conflicts of interest, believes that this is absolutely okay for the First Estate?
Local officials do the same thing the Washington journalists do. They frequently party with contractors, developers, grantees, professional lobbyists, and the like — at charity events, club events, sports events, political party events, campaign events, and private events. The public sees this and assumes that this is the way things are, that these are the people who matter most to local officials. "Ingratiation and access" may not be quid pro quo corruption, but it definitely sends the wrong signal to the public and is a central, perhaps the central, part of the ongoing reciprocal relationships that make local government appear to be run in the interests of those in office, those with whom they have special relationships, and those seeking special benefits or being regulated.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
