Journalists and political donations

If you;re not covering an election with someone you;ve given money to or their opponent, why not? We're still Americans.

It's not like I would give money to the local mayor's campaign, then go cover it like I don;t have a stake. That would be unethical. But if I wanted to give money to say Obama, or Fred Thompson, say, what difference would it make. Especially as a sportswriter.

Of course our ME at my last paper would wear campaign t-shirts for one of his friends who was running for county commissioner. That was probably the MOST ethical thing he did. He was a real prize.

 

Bob, I respectfully disagree.

 

In an age, when everyone is looking to take shots at us, there is no reason for our wounds to be self-inflicted. We can’t be perceived to be anything. Our Utopia would have us perceived as unbiased caretakers of ethics and morals. I know, if I find Utopia, give you a call. But, the public already has a perception of our leanings. Whether, right or wrong, the perception is out there.
We need not to feed that perception. We need to be perceived as caretakers of public trust. In doing so, give that $250 or $500 to your church, to the local Boys and Girls Club, to the local Food Pantry, to the family down the block with the little girls with holes in their pants and shoes. They need it more than Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson.
Sportswriters are not immune to the criticism. We are all journalists. How many brickbats or disparaging remarks in your time as a journalist included the words: “The Media,” “The Paper,” “The Press”? The public doesn’t delineate between a columnist or news reporter or agatician. You work for the “Times” or the “News” or the “Tribune”.
This is what the public hears: We plagiarize. Our companies put dollars ahead of public trust. We’re old media. We’re too set in our ways to change. We’re losing our most experienced and talented people to other entities. And now, we contribute to left-leaning candidates.
Let’s not help that perception. Please.

 

Well, what is wrong if I want to give money to a politician? Not that I would, but if I wanted to. ow would that be unethical or wrong. I'm not influencing anyone. I don;t cover politics in any form. I don't put bumper stickers on my car, signs in my yard.

But if I like a candidate and want them to win, I'll give money.

 

Charles Perry agrees with you ...


(R) Los Angeles Times, Charles Perry, food writer, $200 to the Republican National Committee in October 2004.

"Yes, that $200 was my donation," Perry said in an e-mail.

"The Times ethics policy states as its basic principle that editorial employees may not use their positions at the paper to promote personal agendas or causes, nor should they allow their outside activities to undermine the impartiality of Times coverage, in fact or in appearance. I wholeheartedly support this policy, without any reservation.

"I'm a food and drink writer, not a news reporter. I have always felt there was no problem with contributing to my party because Food is a non-political section (could I somehow smear Democrat beers and whitewash Republican ones?). Therefore I felt my political contributions could scarcely discredit my writing, or my employer.

"The ethics policy says that staff members may not "contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate" (though it also says "The Times does not seek to restrict staff members' participation in civic life"). Since 2004, just to be on the safe side, I have declined to make any political contributions."

 

If your ethics policy says so, then you can't do it.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. Not sure what my paper's policy is on it.

Again, I've never given money to a candidate and never will. Just think I should be allowed under certain circumstances.

 

I'm not sure what the list qua list is all about. (And I'm less sure what the Orville Schell-Eric Alterman thing is about. Schell, who was an academic at that point, reviewed a book. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?) I would not donate. I don't think other people in the business should. But I'm more worried about Jack Welch being in the control room on election night 2000 demanding his network call the election for Bush while GE had its PCB case hanging fire.
A couple years ago, this same guy ran a similar piece and one of the people he caught was a housewife who writes a part-time column in my community paper. That one made it all the way up to Howie Kurtz, who doesn't see anything wrong with being a "media critic" with a show on CNN. I guess there's some prurient interest into who gave what, and Singer's an idiot for handing out that quote, but otherwise, wha?

 

A couple people were copyeditors or line editors. Come on. Taking aim at them is silly.

 

I don't agree.

 

In a perfect world, I'd prefer if journalists and their employers--rather than being banned from contributing to campaigns, causes, non-profits, etc.--were simply up front about where their $$$ was going. If potential bias, for either the left or the right, is an issue, as a reader/viewer/listener/information consumer I'd rather be aware of it and be able to evaluate it for myself. Banning contributions simply creates a veneer of objectivity where objectivity might not exist.

Cheers,

Mike

 

Here's the problem with that - publishers make their contributions so things end up being one sided

 

Me either.