Plans for The Wall Street Journal to launch a free-standing book review section in the coming weeks have drawn concerns about conflicts of interest the newspaper may have given that its parent company, News Corp., owns a major book publisher and a conservative cable news outlet that produces numerous best-selling authors.

While the Journal has published book reviews in the past, observers say creating a stand-alone section will increase the number of reviews and sharpen the potential for conflicts with sister outlet HarperCollins and Fox News Channel, not to mention News Corp.'s numerous overseas newspapers and media entities.

Several veteran newspaper book editors noted the potential traps and warned that the Journal may get bogged down in disclosures if it wants to keep credibility high.

“The potential for conflicts gets even greater the broader your reach is,” said Michael Merschel, assistant arts and features editor at The Dallas Morning News, who oversees its book reviews. “The challenge is there and clearly there are ethical issues here.”

Asked if so many conflicts could hurt the book review's success, he said, “it is entirely possible,” adding that News Corp. is “a sprawling conglomerate.”

Jody Seaborn, book editor at the Austin (Tex.) American-Statesman, agreed: “With News Corp. owning a publishing house that could create a perception issue. I would look seriously at disclosure, but it can be cumbersome if you are adding disclosures in reviews all the time.”

Added Rachel Hartigan Shea, editor of The Washington Post's Book World: “Regular readers might not know about the HarperCollins connection. It seems a difficult situation I don't envy.”

Dow Jones Spokeswoman Ashley Huston issued a statement to Media Matters stating that the newspaper always discloses ties to any subjects of stories, including reviews:

We review HarperCollins books just as we do those of other publishers - on the merits. The same goes for any author. The new book section will be no different, and to suggest otherwise has no basis in fact.

Asked later about disclosing conflicts, Huston wrote:

Our policy is that we disclose potential conflicts or other information when we think they are relevant to readers.

But when asked if the Journal would disclose ties to HarperCollins or any other News Corp. entity for a related review, Huston did not respond.

A check of Journal coverage of HarperCollins books -- a 2010 review of “The Perfection Point” by John Brenkus and a 2009 excerpt of “American Passage: The History of Ellis Island” by Vincent J. Cannato -- found no disclosure of the publisher's connection to the Journal.

Then there is the review of Sarah Palin's 2009 best-selling “Going Rogue,” also a Harper release. The Journal review of the book that ran Nov. 16, 2009, included no disclosure of the publisher's link to the newspaper.

With Palin now a paid commentator for Fox News, it will be interesting to see how the Journal handles coverage of her next book, “America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag,” another Harper imprint due out in November.

“When you are reviewing someone who ultimately gets a paycheck from the same place you do, the key is disclosure,” said Anchorage Daily News book editor Mike Dunham, whose paper knows something about Palin. “I don't know what the formula is, but it makes sense to make note of the fact that there is that connection.”

Laurie Hertzel, senior editor for books and special projects at The Star-Tribune in Minneapolis, said if you do not disclose conflicts then you have to avoid them by not reviewing such books. But she says that could cause other problems.

“If you recuse yourself, you would be cutting yourself off from a great number of books,” she said. “It would be wise to have a disclosure, but it would be awkward to have it in every review. The perception is not to be treated lightly.”

Elizabeth Taylor, literary editor of the Chicago Tribune, pointed out that even with disclosure the ties to HarperCollins could raise questions about how the newspaper chooses which books to review - to aid its publisher or oppose competing publishers.

“Do you give preferential treatment to the books by HarperCollins? That's a problem,” she said. “It is not only about inclusion, but exclusion. Whether to review a book at all. The real challenge for the Journal is not to have its editorial bias in the reviews and in the selections.”

Erin Crum, HarperCollins vice president for corporate communications, said the publisher approaches Journal reviews like any others: “From our perspective, it is another book review and we will reach out to them. The publicists will do the job as they ordinarily do and The Wall Street Journal will decide.”

The Journal book section, as with its past book reviews, will be overseen by an editor who reports to Paul Gigot, the Journal editorial page editor, not a features editor as with most newspapers.

Huston noted:

The book editor and book reviews have always been overseen by the editorial page, including before Paul Gigot was editor. There is nothing new here...

But two book review editors offered concerns about such an approach.

“The different thing about this is that the editor will be answering to the editorial page editor,” Shea of the Post said. “I answer to a features editor. The editor will have a lot of minefields not to step into.”

Taylor in Chicago added, “You could get a certain kind of advocate influencing the sensibilities of the book pages. Book pages have to have a point of view. But not on peace, taxes and post-modernism.”

Two journalism ethicists also warned of the dangers the conflicts could create.

Asked if the book review section could be run properly with so many conflicts, Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, stated: “I don't honestly know the answer. Ever since [Rupert] Murdoch bought The Wall Street Journal, they have had a lot of conflicts to navigate.”

Fred Brown, ethics committee vice-chairman for the Society of Professional Journalists, adds, “It is difficult to have these kinds of relationships and not have the reviews called into question from time to time.”