Third columnist paid to help promote Bush policy

[kermit]

The way I see it, paying a spokesperson to endorse a product is a perfectly legitimate, legal and ethical business transaction. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But it is unethical to pretend to be a journalist when you are actually a spokesperson.

 

[trunks2k]

The way I see it, paying a spokesperson to endorse a product is a perfectly legitimate, legal and ethical business transaction. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Well, in the some of the things the white house is done, the legality is questionable. I believe Congress already decided that the fake news report the white house made to endorse the perscription drug plan was illegal. The same reason that was illegal may hold for Armstrong, I dunno.

But the bigger question has to do with personal ethics, not legality, and moreso on the part of the pundits/journalists than the Bush admin. If you are being paid by or involved with an institution that you write or talk about, I feel it is very unethical to not disclose that fact. In an opinion piece there should be the title of the piece, the name of the author, the article itself, and any relevent information about the author. This includes recent or ongoing payment by or involvement with the subject of the article.

Why some people think not doing so is perfectly ethical is beyond me.

There's also the ethical/legal question of the white house using public funds to publically promote partisan policy. If the republican party has a policy it wants to publically promote so it makes it through the senate and wants to use it's own funds to do so - that's fine. That's normal politics. However, if they start using public funds to push a policy issue, like in the case of that fake news report, that not only unethical, but I believe it is also illegal.

I'm familiar enough with Armstrong's situation to strongly feel that Armstrong acted very unethically - I don't know where the funds to pay him came from. As for the other two: The girl who was a pundit on marriage did act unethically, not horribly unethical, but unethical nonetheless - but the whitehouse did nothing wrong. The 3rd person I don't know anything about.

 

[TheBear]

But it is unethical to pretend to be a journalist when you are actually a spokesperson.

Very true.

However, we are talking about columnist Mike McManus, not news anchor Dan Rather.

 

[TheBear]

If you are being paid by or involved with an institution that you write or talk about, I feel it is very unethical to not disclose that fact.

I agree!

Mike McManus is a columnist and does not hide that fact. He does not present himself as an unbiased journalist. That right there ought to give us a clue.


I still see nothing wrong with this. And don't think that this type of business practice is exclusive to any one party. All parties who occupied the White House have done business this way.

It's one of the White House perks.

 

[TheBear]

So, did Mike McManus try to hide the fact that he was getting paid?

 

[kermit]

Very true.

However, we are talking about columnist Mike McManus, not news anchor Dan Rather.

Both columnists and reporters are concidered journalists.

 

[trunks2k]

So, did Mike McManus try to hide the fact that he was getting paid?

I dunno if he tried to hide the fact that he was paid. But if he failed to disclose the fact that he was paid on his own, then that is unethical.

 

[Scribbler]

Both columnists and reporters are concidered journalists.

So, when Rather was paid to speak @ a Democatic Fundraiser a few years back, is that somewhere in the realm of unethical?

 

[kermit]

So, when Rather was paid to speak @ a Democatic Fundraiser a few years back, is that somewhere in the realm of unethical?

By speaking at fundraiser was he acting as his role as a journalist? No.

I have no problem with journalists being paid by an organization. They just have to make people aware of the relationship so that we can be aware of any bias or conflict of interest.

I remember a few years ago when Time/Warner merged with AOL. There was a CNN story about it. At the end the reported stated that Time/Warner is the parent company of CNN. He did this to make the audience aware of the fact there is a possibility of a conflict of interest in the reporting.

 

[Scribbler]

By speaking at fundraiser was he acting as his role as a journalist? No.

I have no problem with journalists being paid by an organization. They just have to make people aware of the relationship so that we can be aware of any bias or conflict of interest.

I remember a few years ago when Time/Warner merged with AOL. There was a CNN story about it. At the end the reported stated that Time/Warner is the parent company of CNN. He did this to make the audience aware of the fact there is a possibility of a conflict of interest in the reporting.

So, the Kerry campaign can hire journalists like Paul Begala & James Carville as "Campaign Advisors", and it's ethical as long as they disclose it? No "conflict of interests" for either of them? Or Dan Rather?

 

[seebs]

So, the Kerry campaign can hire journalists like Paul Begala & James Carville as "Campaign Advisors", and it's ethical as long as they disclose it? No "conflict of interests" for either of them? Or Dan Rather?

Disclosing it certainly makes it closer to ethical...

But if the Republicans have been reduced to "they did something bad too" as a justification for their actions, then something has gone very wrong in the GOP.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So, when Rather was paid to speak @ a Democatic Fundraiser a few years back, is that somewhere in the realm of unethical?

Was he acting in his capacity as a newscaster, or was it fairly obvious that he was there at the behest of the Democratic Party?

 

[The Lady Kate]

The way I see it, paying a spokesperson to endorse a product is a perfectly legitimate, legal and ethical business transaction. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Fair enough. Williams is now a spokesperson for the government. Not to be confused with an independent columnist.

 

[kermit]

So, the Kerry campaign can hire journalists like Paul Begala & James Carville as "Campaign Advisors", and it's ethical as long as they disclose it? No "conflict of interests" for either of them? Or Dan Rather?

Exactly!! The ethics conflict isn't that these people are being paid, it's if they don't disclose a possible conflict of interest. As a audience we expect our commentators and reports to be impartial. If they aren't we should know so that we are an informed audience.

Disclosure of a conflict of interest doesn't make it go away. It just makes it ethical. A conflict of interest is not unethical per se. It's only unethical if it is hidden.

 

[daveleau]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/paid.columnists.ap/index.html

Why are the Bush underlings paying for people to back their policies when there are pundits (Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter) who are willing to do it for free....or at least I think they are doing it for free.....

This was a paid service, not a paid advertisement as the other two were. This one was paid to get counselors trained. This is totally different and legit. Without the other two instances being out there, this would be found to be a normal and legitimate practice. Only because the other two instances were there is this being questioned.

 

[TheBear]

Both columnists and reporters are concidered journalists.

Well....not exactly. They are part of the media, but do not operate within the same parameters. One would hardly consider Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken as unbiased journalists. And they don't try to hide the fact that they're biased commentators. They have every right to voice their opinions. But, anyone who thinks either one of them is 100% unbiased and factually complete, needs to get their heads examined.

 

[TheBear]

I dunno if he tried to hide the fact that he was paid. But if he failed to disclose the fact that he was paid on his own, then that is unethical.

But I mean - is there some protocol he did not follow? What exactly did he fail to do? Is there some public form he needs to fill out and failed to do so? Should there be a disclaimer in all op-ed columns? What exactly did he do wrong? Does he need to register his status with some entity? What specific and ethical rules or policies did he breach?

So, unless he was asked about his income and deliberately lied to conceal it, what are we talking about? People may strongly disagree with he stands for, and I respect that. But try not to let that cloud sound reasoning and good judgement on this issue.

 

[kermit]

Well....not exactly. They are part of the media, but do not operate within the same parameters. One would hardly consider Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken as unbiased journalists. And they don't try to hide the fact that they're biased commentators. They have every right to voice their opinions. But, anyone who thinks either one of them is 100% unbiased and factually complete, needs to get their heads examined.

Who ever said that journalists are unbiased? We all have a biases.

The topic isn't bias it's impartiality. A bias that is formed impartially is fine. That is that the bias is formed based upon the person's view of the evidence. When that bias is formed (or even appears to be formed) by gifts or favors is when there could be a problem. The problem only exists if the viewer doesn't know there is a lack of impartiality.

Rush and Franken have impartial views. Views that differ greatly, but views that are not bought. Their effectiveness as commentators rests on the fact that they have impartial views.

 

[TheBear]

Who ever said that journalists are unbiased? We all have a biases.

A good chunk of this discussion has been dedicated to outlining the high ethical standards of journalism. Being fair and impartial is a cornerstone standard for a journalist. Not presenting personal opinions as fact would be another golden rule of journalism. Not allowing personal ideology or agenda to dictate the dissemination of news, is another journalistic standard. But since you are either unwilling or unable to make the distinction between a journalist and a columnist, you give journalists a free pass to do what is being decried in this thread.

Amazing.

 

[kermit]

A good chunk of this discussion has been dedicated to outlining the high ethical standards of journalism. Being fair and impartial is a cornerstone standard for a journalist. Not presenting personal opinions as fact would be another golden rule of journalism. Not allowing personal ideology or agenda to dictate the dissemination of news, is another journalistic standard. But since you are either unwilling or unable to make the distinction between a journalist and a columnist, you give journalists a free pass to do what is being decried in this thread.

Amazing.

I am doing no such thing!! I am simply saying that we all have biases and pretending they don't exist won't make them go away. And that if a conflict of interest exists then the audience needs to know about it.

Commentators are journalists. They are held to the same standards of impariality as reporters. Reporters are held to a stricter standard of attemping to minimize bias.

You are the one that is trying to make it seem ok for someone to be on the take then pretend to be impartial.

Absolutely amazing!!!