| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: CNN's Bennett and donation(s) disclosure |
Topic: CNN's Bennett and donation(s) disclosure
| Author | Message |
| Tedwrites | Posted – 2/3/2008 10:30:15 PM | show profile Soulman? Where are you? Total hypocrisy. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 2/3/2008 10:37:29 PM | show profile huffnpuff is still pissed she did not get elected gov. of cali. can you imagine what whould have happened if she did? the state is screwed up enough. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 2/3/2008 11:04:02 PM | show profile Begala and Carville were pulled. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 2/4/2008 3:27:37 AM | show profile i can see why carville waspulled. just watching a repete of meet the press on msnbc and carville claimed that mccain said that economics was not his strong point. mccain has clearly stated that economics is a strong point for him and has been for some time. carville is up to his old tricks. |
| sstrussman | Posted – 2/4/2008 3:45:45 AM | show profile Bill Bennett You know, Mr. Bennet is a world class reporter/commenator whose work I greatly admire. So what? He contributed to a couple of Republicans who have no hope in winning this upcoming election. Now THAT is "Fair and Balanced." |
| sstrussman | Posted – 2/4/2008 3:59:09 AM | show profile Hufington Post Oh, by the way, who even reads the "Huffington Post" anyway? :-) |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 4:05:45 AM | show profile It's an interesting question. I'm sure a lot of "analysts" you see on the boob tube have "special interests". But a few observations: #1.) Bennett's own bio doesn't use the word "journalist" anywhere. He's not a journalist. He's former Reagan appointee with a law degree that's written a book about so-called traditional values. It's disturbing how many times you see on this board people equating analysts with journalists; #2.) When HuffPo says he's given "thousands of dollars" to one candidate, what does that mean? As far as I understand it, you can't give more than $2,500 as an individual to a candidate. Is that what they mean by "thousands"? Did he give $2,500 to McCain more than once over the years? Did he and his wife give to McCain, making it $5,000. I'm confused. #3.) Personally I have no issue with journalists participating in our so-called democracy (actually a republic fueled by legal bribes by corporations, groups and usually very wealthy individuals, to favored candidates who must then pay media companies to disseminate their propaganda). Journalists can do this as long as it's within the reasonable boundaries. But I wouldn't recommend anything further than simply voting and keeping that vote secret. I don't think journalists should give money to any political group. Charity is OK (OxFam, Doctors Without Borders, etc.). Voting is OK. But going the extra mile to throw your weight behind a political candidate betrays the appearance of objectivity. I say "appearance" because, again, objectivity is an ideal, not something attainable in an absolute sense. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 4:10:46 AM | show profile Oh, and, of course, any charity a journalist contributes to means that the journalist cannot cover that topic professionally. They have to make that choice: give to OxFam and don't cover world hunger issues, or don't give to OxFam if there might ever be an apparent conflict of interest. Good journalists self-impose these restrictions, because they don't want their reputations harmed by any suggestions of conflict of interest. |
| Tedwrites | Posted – 2/4/2008 9:23:58 PM | show profile What if a news president was supporting a candidate...openly, but off the job and not contributing money (like in social situations?). Like if that network ran debates, say, or issued poll numbers right on the eve of a convention, for instance? |
| Tedwrites | Posted – 2/4/2008 9:24:47 PM | show profile Correction "Election" not convention... |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 2/4/2008 10:59:53 PM | show profile Stv, you obviously haven't watched a recent republican debate, or last week when Mccain was on Meet the Press. Mccain himself said in a quote a few weeks said that the economy is not one of his strong suits, he had to pickup Alan Greenspan's book. James Carville wasn't up to his old trick. It came from John Mccains mouth. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-economic-underst_n_82529.html I do think if you are an analyist you shouldn't be donating to any parties campaign. It doesn't make you better because you weren't making a choice between the two candidates. He's a conservative commentator. You know I respect Carville and Begala for being upfront in there support. They support Hillary Clinton. It doesn't make Bennett noble for donating money to two candidates, and not picking one. I understand our world is supposed to be no one is allowed to be bias in there reporting, and if they are, then they can't have a trusted opinion. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 2/5/2008 10:07:36 AM | show profile HA! You are taking one instance and assuming Matt and Katie are left, while Brit is right. I guess its not possible that some people are liberal on some issues, while they are conservative on others, right? I know that's how I live my life, I'm liberal on some issues, while I'm conservative on others. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 2/5/2008 11:19:01 AM | show profile "Its not hard to tell what side of the fence people are on when you see them on TV or read them in newspapers." Isn't it possible a reporter's entire approach to her job isn't based on "what side of the fence she's on"? I mean, most people -- not even talking reporters, who have experiencing and training in studying and reporting on complex issues -- have a bit more complexity with how they view the world than simply falling on one of two clearly demarcated sides of the fence, with every idea, opinion and conclusion they have determined soley by their side's dogma. There seems to be an obsession here with uncovering the "hidden truth" about which one of two teams any reporter has secret pledged allegience to. It's all rather silly and reductive. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 2/5/2008 12:12:50 PM | show profile I don't really concern myself with if an individual reporter is "siding with the right" (or "siding with the Giants" or whatever "team" I root for). It's more important if they're presenting a compelling story, hopefully one I didn't already know, with the evidence to back it up. Plus, I'm more concerned what's happening on the higher levels, with media mergers and corporate ownership and relationships at the top. That's a much bigger, longer-term issue. |
| Tedwrites | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:03:48 PM | show profile Rick Who??? 1992? I mean THIS lelection, in the modern day era of press scrutiny. I ask, because this morning when I opened the ole AOL Time warner welcome screen, there was a HUGE UGLY picture of Hillary and a link to a blog saying don;t vote for her. Yowza! That is so biased. No you didn;t you write exactly the same way as soulman! You must also be pretty old, cause like Rick who??? The Lincoln bedroom. Is that in a history book somewhere? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 2/6/2008 10:52:17 AM | show profile Ahh, my bad. I see you were quoting an entire post from crime. Well, if Pip has caught you yet for some of the choice terms (I still get a chuckle from "washerwoman") you've thrown my way, that's just because he missed them. Carry on! |
