32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/politics/george-stephanopoulos-discloses-gifts-to-clinton-foundation.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

What on earth was he thinking? If Stephanopoulus doesn't immediately resign, he should be immediately fired. I'm a journalist. If I gave money to a politician, or the foundation of a former politician whose wife is a politician, I'd be fired. Immediately. Why don't the same rules apply once you start making six figures?
 

phyrpowr

Honors Member
3,161
United States
North Carolina
Charlotte
Who ever thought this guy was an unbiased reporter in the first place? Not me, and I'm a lifelong Democrat (with the odd lapse here and there).
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,566
United States
Illinois
Chicago
Actually I'm ok with it. I mean, it's not as though no one suspected that he was going to be an otherwise objective journalist.
 

eagle2250

Connoisseur/Curmudgeon Emeritus - Moderator
30,087
Harmony, FL
United States
Florida
Harmony
^^+1. I've never been a Clinton fan and I really have never thought of George Stephanoupolus as much of a journalist...really more of an analyst, with a gift for entertaining his listeners...sort of a Democratic version of a Bill O'Reilly trainee! :devil: Besides, we all exercise our unique penchants to contributing to our favored philanthropies. What's the problem here? :icon_scratch:
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
^^+1. I've never been a Clinton fan and I really have never thought of George Stephanoupolus as much of a journalist...really more of an analyst, with a gift for entertaining his listeners...sort of a Democratic version of a Bill O'Reilly trainee! :devil: Besides, we all exercise our unique penchants to contributing to our favored philanthropies. What's the problem here? :icon_scratch:
The problem is, ABC bills itself as a fair and objective source of news. Now, we can disagree on whether that is in fact true, and I would argue that there is inherent bias in all forms of human activity, but you, at least, have to make it look good, as good as you can. This opens the entire news division, I think, to charges of engrained political bias. No news organization should tolerate this and still call itself a news organization. If nothing else, he has no business whatsoever serving as a moderator in any presidential debate, which is where this was headed before these donations were publicized.
 

Gurdon

Moderator
2,935
United States
California
Forestville
I am not terribly familiar with the current contours of broadcast journalism. I imagine, however that many of the individuals who might be called upon to moderate or otherwise host election debates might have similar histories of contributing to politically inflected causes.

Would having contributed to, say, former president Regan's library disqualify a journalist from moderating a debate?

Gurdon
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
I am not terribly familiar with the current contours of broadcast journalism. I imagine, however that many of the individuals who might be called upon to moderate or otherwise host election debates might have similar histories of contributing to politically inflected causes.

Would having contributed to, say, former president Regan's library disqualify a journalist from moderating a debate?

Gurdon
In my opinion, yes, it would. Reagan is not a universally acclaimed figure in today's political landscape. He is often cited by candidates as a role model. To make a contribution to anything related to Reagan signals a certain political disposition that is inappropriate for a journalist. I'd say the same thing about FDR. I think that you really have to go back to Lincoln before you can start allowing journalists to make contributions to presidential libraries.

What amazes me in this is the notion that what GS did, what O'Reilly has done, what others have done that demonstrate either political persuasions or dishonesty, is somehow OK. It isn't OK. This is dating me, but there was a good reason that they called Walter Cronkite the most trusted man in America. He never would have engaged in such things, and so when he did stray from being the objective teller of truth as he knew it, most infamously when he questioned U.S. involvement in Vietnam, people paid attention. "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America," LBJ said in response to Cronkite's reporting in 1968.

GS, Brian Williams, all these jokers/pretenders who work as anchors want to take on the mantle of Cronkite, but they don't want to do what is necessary to earn it. Yet, their employers promote them as such. What is necessary to earn it is being honest and as objective in appearance as possible. This stuff with GS and O'Reilly and others reminds of a media version of the Jordan Rules.
 

my19

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
441
United States
Texas
Carrollton
As 32rr notes, ABC's decision to hire Stephanoupolus for its news division after he spent four years in the inner sanctum of the Clinton White House was an incredible breach of journalistic standards. Trotting him out as an occasional pundit to square off with Karl Rove is one thing. Making him an anchor in a legitimate news operation is unthinkable.

A journalist must always give the appearance of absolute impartiality. You don't have a social dinner with the mayor. You don't let your tennis buddy who's running for city council put a sign in your yard. You certainly don't spend years working closely with the President and then expect people to view you as impartial and unbiased. And you don't donate money to said President's foundation.

So ABC made a terrible decision. And if Stephanopoulos was any kind of a journalist, he would have known he could never appear to viewers as unbiased or impartial.

The notion of using him to moderate a presidential debate -- when one of those debating is the wife of his old boss -- makes my head explode.
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
You said this better than I ever could.

As 32rr notes, ABC's decision to hire Stephanoupolus for its news division after he spent four years in the inner sanctum of the Clinton White House was an incredible breach of journalistic standards. Trotting him out as an occasional pundit to square off with Karl Rove is one thing. Making him an anchor in a legitimate news operation is unthinkable.

A journalist must always give the appearance of absolute impartiality. You don't have a social dinner with the mayor. You don't let your tennis buddy who's running for city council put a sign in your yard. You certainly don't spend years working closely with the President and then expect people to view you as impartial and unbiased. And you don't donate money to said President's foundation.

So ABC made a terrible decision. And if Stephanopoulos was any kind of a journalist, he would have known he could never appear to viewers as unbiased or impartial.

The notion of using him to moderate a presidential debate -- when one of those debating is the wife of his old boss -- makes my head explode.
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,566
United States
Illinois
Chicago
Is he even a journalist? I mean, does he go around and get the story? Does he actually do his own investigative work?

As far as I'm concerned, if you're an anchor on TV, especially if you're a morning show person, you're reading what someone else wrote.

Therefore, anyone taking him seriously should think twice. This goes for everyone on the morning shows, Fox included.
 
Ratio Clothing Custom Shirts