[hsitz]

> It's kind of a throwaway passage in the article but it feels like a crucial point. Maybe I'm wrong but "buying off" to me strongly suggests something along the lines of a bribe. We're going to give you this cash, nudge nudge, wink wink, maybe that negative stuff you print about us goes away. My question is: is this actually happening?

My question is: Do you really need to ask that? Human nature is human nature; there's little doubt that it's happening to some extent. Virtually impossible that it's not happening at all.

The problem to me seems quite similar to campaign contributions in politics. Yes, it's indirect, and all parties can say it's innocent, no strings attached, the elected representative is not "required" to do anything. Those are words that help people ignore the reality of human nature. Money is influence.

[dlp211]

This is why the business side and news side of (quality) news papers have been historically kept separate. It also leads to perceived "weirdness" to readers when they see a paper taking money from a corporation to run an advertisement alongside an article critical of said corporation.

This isn't to invalidate your point completely, but to give some insight to those who are not aware of how this conflict of interest has been generally handled.

[hsitz]

Yes, of course, I agree. And it doesn't invalidate my point at all. I would say that you're pointing out the problem that people don't understand how important it is to avoid conflicts of interest, and that we need systems in place to minimize it.

The case of Donald Trump is a perfect example. He had conflicts of interest galore, didn't even deny them, in fact he flouted them, and many people seemed to think everything was fine.

We need to be aware not only of the existence of conflicts of interest, but also of (1) how corrosive these conflicts are, and (2) the crucial importance of designing systems to minimize the bad incentives and effects that arise from conflicts of interest. Systems, in other words, that minimize the harm that -- because of human nature -- inevitably flows even from well-intentioned people when conflicts of interest are tolerated.

[imgabe]

> My question is: Do you really need to ask that?

Yes, you really need to ask that. When accusing someone of misconduct you really do need to ask if it is really happening and not just hand wave about human nature and make judgements based on untested assumptions. You really really can’t just go along with whatever fits your biases.

[hsitz]

Well, I would say that if you want to accuse them of misconduct then the main thing would be to ascertain intentions. Certainly, if there is no bad intention on the part of the actor, then it makes no sense to accuse them of misconduct. So if you want to accuse them of misconduct, definitely, yes, you need to ask questions about their intent.

On the other hand, regardless of intent, it does still make sense to say that the system is maladjusted, that the system is designed in such a way that even actors with good intentions are incentivized to do harmful things. And the question regarding the system really is clear: Does a recipient accepting money from an advertiser tend to create in them a more positive opinion regarding the advertiser than if the recipient received no money at all? To that, the answer is yes. It doesn't mean the recipient has committed "misconduct"; more likely it's just that the recipient is a well-intentioned actor in a maladjusted system.

[thu2111]

Surely something being misconduct or not is independent of someone's intentions? All kinds of people do bad things with good intentions.

[hsitz]

Yes, we've got to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. In general, we don't morally censure a person who does bad things with good intentions. For example, in criminal law there is usually a requirement of ill-intent, called "mens rea"[1], which means the actor is aware that what they're doing is wrong.

If a person does something wrong but is not aware that what they did is wrong, the general reaction is not to "accuse them of misconduct", but rather to explain to them what it is about their action that's wrong, after which (if they in fact have good intent) they will no longer do that action.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[thu2111]

Mens rea is subtly different, I think. It is intended to allow a defense that you really didn't want to break the law and did so unintentionally. It isn't quite about the self-perceived goodness of your intentions. That is, stating "I knew I was breaking the law but my actions were good and I didn't realise people would think I'd done something bad, therefore I don't have mens rea" won't work. Knowledge that it was illegal was sufficient. And mens rea is also not a defense that allows legal ignorance.

It's also worth noting that quite a lot of broad crimes are strict liability these days, especially in America. For example money laundering is a strict liability crime, along with more obvious ones like speeding.

Misconduct though is not normally a criminal law term anyway. More like a code of conduct for an organisation.

[hsitz]

Not really. I'm a lawyer so I have a decent grasp of this stuff. Mens rea is closely tied to intent, not really to whether it had anything to do with intending to break a law (ignorance of the law is generally not a defense). Think of the difference between someone who commits premeditated murder, someone who commits manslaughter through gross negligence (e.g., a drunk driver), and someone who by complete accident is responsible for another's death (someone runs out in front of your car). In each case a person's actions directly cause another person's death, however we attach different levels of culpability to each. We're getting a little bit far afield from original issue, here, though. Anyway . . .

[yepnopemaybe]

This permissive admitted towards public corruption is a fairly new development in US politics.

Jimmy Carter put his struggling peanut farm in a blind trust to avoid the appearance of corruption. This has become a punchline today, but was standard at the time.

Frankly, the corruption of the Clintons, who generally took turns raking in cash while the other performed duties as a public servant, sent the dominos crashing here.

Because corruption is incredibly easy to hide and obscure, it is correct to cultivate a culture of transparency accountability when, for example, tens of millions of dollars change hands between powerful institutions for no apparent reason.

[dash2]

GP wasn’t permissive towards corruption. Rather, he/she was demanding about evidence.