ここでも倫理が大事

Re/codeのサイトの人物紹介のところで目を引いたのは、[ETHICS]の部分です。経歴を説明する[BIO]は分かるんですが、[ETHICS]って倫理ですよねえ。

[ETHICS] [BIO] [ARTICLE]

モスバーグのEthics Statementの最初を見ていきます。当たり前のことですが、取材する企業から金銭の授受を否定しています。

Ethics Statement
Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

I am not an objective news reporter, and am not responsible for business coverage of technology companies. I am a subjective opinion columnist, a reviewer of consumer technology products and a commentator on technology issues. I don’t offer investment advice, or follow the financial progress or stock prices of technology companies. I focus on products and services, not revenues and earnings.

I don’t accept any money, free products, or anything else of value, from the companies whose products I cover, or from their public relations or advertising agencies. I also don’t accept trips, speaking fees, or product discounts from companies whose products I cover, or from their public relations or advertising agencies. I don’t serve as a consultant to any companies, or serve on any corporate boards or advisory boards.

I do occasionally take a free t-shirt from these companies, but my wife hates it when I wear them, as she considers them ugly.

I don’t own a single share of stock in any of the companies whose products I cover, or any shares in technology-oriented mutual funds.

日本ではメディアがマスゴミと呼ばれたり、ステマが話題になったりしますが、アメリカでもメディア不信は相当あるのでしょうね。特にAll Things Dは新商品紹介などもしていますから、（日本の多くのメディアのように）企業広報に成り下がってしまいやすいからでしょうか。また編集権の独立を訴えNBCのような親会社の意向から独立していることを最後に訴えています。

My reviews have total editorial independence from these investors, even when they touch on products and services these companies produce, compete with, or invest in. The same goes for all content on Re/code and at our conferences.

スイッシャーさんの方のEthics Statementです。Spouseがグーグルに務めていることを正直に伝えています。（個人的には同性愛者であることも驚きですが。。。）グーグルに都合の悪いことは伝えないのではという批判に対しては、これまでの仕事ぶりを評価して欲しいと伝えています。

Ethics Statement
Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Let’s begin with a critical piece of information every reader of this site needs to know about me: My longtime spouse, Megan Smith, has been an executive at search giant Google since 2003, where she has had a number of jobs, including as vice president of new business development and general manager of the company’s philanthropic arm, Google.org. She is currently working at Google[x], the division of the company dedicated to “moon shot” experiments such driverless cars, Project Glass (wearable computers) and Project Loon (Internet access delivered by high-altitude balloons). She does not share information with me about any of these projects or any others at Google.

Obviously, a substantial amount of Megan’s income from Google has been in shares and options, some of which she has sold and some of which she still holds. Megan makes all her own decisions related to these shares and options, and I do not own any of them. Further, I have signed legal documents that disallow me from future rights to own them and, in the event of her death, her wealth will pass directly to our two children. In addition, Megan still holds a number of shares and options (none of which I own or have future rights to own) in PlanetOut, where she served as CEO before she moved to Google.

While some may raise objections, I would hope that readers will judge my work on its merits, especially in light of my extensive experience covering the technology industry for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and in two books about AOL I authored in the 1990s. In fact, I began reporting on Google itself in 1999, well before others did, and wrote many articles about the company years before Megan worked there.

Honoring a long-term commitment to high standards of journalism is key to the success of my work. I am well aware of the controversies surrounding ethics online now swirling about, some of which have resulted in giving readers some pause about the quality and honesty of some in the blogosphere. Such wariness is always a good thing for everyone and I encourage readers to ask tough questions and demand more of those providing them information of all kinds. I know that I am asking for a large measure of trust from readers of the site, and I pledge to do everything I can to be deserving of that trust.

バカッターによって企業の信用を失うのは一瞬で事足りますが、IT時代の信用をどのように築くのかは難しそうですね。

ちょっと脱線しますが、ブルームバーグは市長を務めていたブルームバーグ個人を記事として取り上げないという方針のようです。

Bloomberg News reaffirms ban on writing about Mike Bloomberg
December 13, 2013: 5:00 AM ET
The news organization owned by Bloomberg LP has an unusual, self-imposed policy preventing itself from writing about its founder.
By Peter Elkind, editor-at-large

FORTUNE -- When Michael Bloomberg retires as New York's mayor in January after 12 years in office, it's unclear what exactly he'll do (beyond claiming a desk back at Bloomberg LP, the financial data giant he founded). Whatever he does, he's sure to keep making news.

You can count on him to keep fighting for new gun-control laws. He could well continue to push his public-health initiatives against sugary drinks and smoking. And he's certain to make headline-grabbing charitable gifts: He's worth an estimated $31 billion, and gave $350 million just in 2013 to Johns Hopkins (bringing his lifetime total giving to his alma mater over $1 billion).

But there's one place you won't read about any of it: Bloomberg News. Since the creation of its journalism arm in 1990, Bloomberg LP -- 85% owned by Mike (as he is referred to at the company and will be referred to here to avoid confusion) -- has banned coverage of the company and its owner on the grounds that it would be a conflict of interest. Bloomberg News made a limited exception for covering Mike's official actions as New York's mayor. But his return to private life will bring an end to all that.

That's the result, Fortune has learned, of a decision by Bloomberg News editor-in-chief Matt Winkler to reject an internal recommendation urging the company to change its policy. "I see no reason to change a policy that was conceived at the inception of Bloomberg News, and has served us well," Winkler told Fortune in late October, during an interview for an in-depth report on Bloomberg LP. ("The trouble at Bloomberg," subscription required; Fortune is a competitor of Bloomberg News and its magazines.) The company this week confirmed that Winkler's view will prevail.

情報の受け手としてはマスゴミだからと全否定すれば済む話ではないですから、なかなか難しい話です。