A little disclosure would be nice

By Zach W On October 12, 2009 · 1 Comment · In Election 2010, Those Kooky Conservatives!, Wisconsin Politics

Let’s make one thing clear: Terrence Wall is not an official candidate for Russ Feingold’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010. However, as Jason Haas notes, the fact that Wall is not an official candidate shouldn’t stop In Business magazine from disclosing the fact that Terrence Wall may be using his regular column in their publication to pave the way for his own candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

After all, should Terrence Wall be given carte blanche to express his political opinions – especially if those opinions may bolster his own candidacy – without readers being made aware of Wall’s aspirations?

I understand an argument could be made that Wall isn’t an official candidate for the U.S. Senate, and thus no disclaimer is necessary, but as Jason Haas wrote,

At best, that is a poor excuse. At worst, it’s a crass ethical failure. I call upon In Business to disclose Mr. Wall’s potential candidacy in each and every one of his online and in-print columns. It takes very little effort to do so, and the reputation of the magazine would be well-served by the move.

Terrence Wall and In Business should make it clear to readers that Wall is a rumored candidate for the U.S. Senate – it just seems like the right thing to do.

Tagged with: Terrence Wall

opinions powered by SendLove.to

One Response to A little disclosure would be nice

Locke says:

October 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Terrence Wall and In Business should make it clear to readers that Wall is a rumored candidate for the U.S. Senate – it just seems like the right thing to do.

Can’t help but chuckle a little at that – in particular, the word rumor. If media needed to disclose every rumor about the people writing/creating content for them I think newspapers, magazines and TV shows would be nothing but disclaimers.

The legal requirement is clear – if you haven’t turned in your papers or officially declared candidacy, you have nothing to disclose. I do however agree that that bar is low – and one’s ethical standards should be higher. But it’s necessarily low because it’s the only point where it is clear – anything beyond that becomes shades of gray. What is reasonable? Have you considered running? Any office? In the past? The next election? The one after that? What about how seriously one might be considering a run? If you think the disclosure needs to be made in this case, explain to me what the clearly defined rule should be that would be applied in all cases.

But using whether or not there are rumors of a candidacy is just stupid since by definition, rumors are unsubstantiated and unverified. I heard Zach W is going to run for Doyle’s job. There – now that’s a rumor and you need to attach a disclaimer with every post you make critical of Walker or Neumann.
0 likes

Reply