About 50 journalists and educators have written The New York Times to ask that it more clearly note the conflicts of interest for its opinion-editorial contributors.
 
Their letter to the public editor does not suggest that the Times is alone in the matter, but that as the "paper of record" it can lead the way in identifying the conflicts its contributors have as they write for the organization.

In this instance they have identified Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, as an example of insufficient disclosure. Rather than note that his institute receives funds from the energy sector, the Times refers to him as a senior fellow or an energy expert.

The Times does ask its freelance contributors to answer a questionnaire on their backgrounds

Craig Silverman, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, suggested that the group behind the letter has its own possible conflicts to declare. Nevertheless, he believes that there are reasonable limits on the amount of declarations practical in media and that it is not always possible to explain every detail of one's background. Still, he does call for some standardized approach.

"We should move to standardize the way contributors are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest and relevant related information," he wrote. "Once that information is provided, we should meet a higher standard of disclosing it to the public."

For a few weeks, the CEO of TechCrunch has been embroiled in a debate on how he ought to declare conflicts as he writes for and manages one of the leading websites on technology writing.
 
Michael Arrington has recently resumed his investments, which has drawn some criticism in the tech writing community. His policy is to declare these conflicts as they arise. His view is that declaration carries with it the necessary transparency to steer readers clear of conflicted content about which they would be unaware.

He posted recently on his investment policy and now has posted again on the fallout from the criticism. He asserts there is no such thing as objectivity and that the better policy is to declare conflicts rather than police them without the audience's understanding.

His view is increasingly shared as more experts involve themselves in journalism. They are conflicted by virtue of past involvement in companies or activities and they would prefer to continue to have associations or investments as they contribute journalism. Their solution is to declare conflicts and let the readers decide if their work can be trusted.

What are your views of how conflicts should be policed and declared in this increasingly complex time?