Junk Journalist: Adam Wren
Wren’s Report on Vance’s Speaking Fees Shows Signs of Junk Journalism
WASHINGTON— A recent report from Politico’s Adam Wren on Sen. J.D. Vance’s speaking fees during his 2017 book tour demonstrates the subtle bias that creates Junk Journalism. The report highlights Vance’s requests for first-class flights, private cars, and fees up to $40,000. The story lacked any balance and context and therefore is Junk Journalism.
spj-code-of-ethicsVance’s speaking fees, which reached $40,000 before being negotiated down to $30,000, are typical for bestselling authors. After the success of his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, Vance’s public profile skyrocketed. Speaking fees for bestselling authors often range from $20,000 to $50,000, with many requiring first-class travel and luxury accommodations.
The determination was made using the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Conduct. Additionally, artificial intelligence analyzed the story.
Conclusion:
The article does a solid job of reporting facts based on public records but could be seen as having subtle biases in tone and framing, particularly in how it compares Vance’s fees to prominent Democrats and how it juxtaposes his earlier criticism of Trump with his current political alignment. These choices may leave readers with a negative impression of Vance, even if the story’s core facts are accurate.
To better align with the SPJ Code of Ethics, the article could:
Provide a broader context about speaking fees for authors to avoid any impression of singling out Vance.
Ensure the emphasis on his fees and travel requests does not come off as sensationalistic.
Be cautious with framing that contrasts Vance’s political stances unless it is directly relevant to the speaking fees in question(spj-code-of-ethics).
For comparison, top political figures like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can command six-figure fees for speaking engagements. Even mid-level authors charge between $10,000 and $25,000 per event. Vance’s requests were well within industry standards.
The Politico report focused on Vance’s negotiations with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The university ultimately decided not to host Vance due to the fee and timing issues. However, many universities and institutions regularly pay similar fees to high-profile speakers. The report did not mention this context, making Vance’s fees seem excessive when they are standard practice.
The term “junk journalism” has been used to describe Wren’s reporting. Junk journalism is when stories sensationalize facts or lack proper context to create controversy. In this case, the focus on Vance’s fees without comparing them to industry norms appears designed to mislead readers.
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, defended the senator’s fees. “It’s widely known that bestselling authors are compensated for speaking engagements. High-profile Democrats like the Clintons and Obamas have earned millions from speaking fees. Politico should be embarrassed to report on something so irrelevant to American voters,” Martin said.
The report also contrasted Vance’s previous criticism of Donald Trump with his current political stance, adding a negative slant to the story. Critics say this comparison had little to do with the topic of his speaking fees, which seemed more like an attempt to paint Vance in a bad light.
Vance’s requests, including first-class travel and speaking fees, are far from unusual. Universities and corporations regularly accommodate such demands for well-known speakers. The real issue is the way the story was framed to create controversy where none existed.
For accurate reporting, it’s essential to provide full context and avoid sensationalism. Without this, Wren’s report risks being seen as more interested in grabbing attention than delivering the full story. By failing to offer these comparisons, the article falls short of journalistic standards and can be seen as an example of junk journalism.