In about two weeks, the inaugural World Innovation Summit for Health will convene in Doha, Qatar. Can't afford a flight to Doha? No worries–the trip and a hotel "can be provided free of charge to international reporters covering the event."
In these troubled times, not many U.S. editors are willing to send reporters that far afield, especially when the event in question is neither a coup nor an earthquake–not even breaking science news. Yes, it might be a fascinating conference. The list of speakers–experts on health policy and innovation, business people, and scientists–is impressive. But is it impressive enough to spend, say, $2,000 to send a reporter? Few editors will think so.
But some reporters and their organizations will decide to take the junket. They will argue that accepting free travel and lodging is fine, because they are far too smart and clever to be corrupted. In May, I wrote about a similar deal in which the European Patent Office and the European Journalism Centre said they would cover journalists' costs to attend the presentations of the European Inventor Award in Amsterdam. That post includes links to other press junkets, if you care to follow this unpleasant trail.
A panel at the 8th World Conference of Science Journalists in Helsinki in June discussed the acceptance of free travel as if it were an unresolved issue: "Should journalists disclose all potential conflicts of interest (such as free travel)? Should governments, universities and researchers stop financing journalists and/or media organizations?"
There is nothing here to discuss. Yes, journalists should disclose all potential conflicts of interest, and yes governments should stop financing journalists. Does anyone really expect hard-hitting stories by a journalist on the payroll of the U.S. government or the World Innovation Summit for Health?
An email sent by the health summit and forwarded to me by a reporter who received it reads like a standard press release, except for the offer of free travel and lodging to reporters. "The Summit will unveil a world first that directly focuses on the United States: The Global Diffusion of Health Innovation – a unique report looking at how countries spread innovation in healthcare…" And so on.
Why is this wrong? Because journalists owe their allegiance to their readers, not their sources. Ask yourself: Would you accept money for travel and a pleasant hotel from the health summit's organizers, and then feel completely free to write a critical piece on the conference? Many reporters will say yes, they would, because they are not influenced by where the money comes from.
Don't believe them.
And if this isn't enough to spark a little anger, consider this: A reporter forwarded me an email seeking coverage of a new fashion and accessories brand, Joi Price (see photo), that is run by–yes–Joi Price, a Second Life avatar. And if you write a story? "As a thank you for your time, I would like to gift you with an item from the collection titled 'Command' [see photo above] constructed from the highest quality, hand cut deerskin leather and 14k gold filling, retailing at $295.00."
If you happen to think that accepting free travel is fine, but accepting jewelry is wrong, you might want to think again.
Where would you draw the line?
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply