BuzzMachine

I wouldn’t call it a “sin,” Jeff, but I wouldn’t call it “wise” either. I have no problem with you sharing your opinions. I generally like your opinions, but I happen to disagree with you about Hillary. No big deal. I just wouldn’t encourage you to waste your money on her failing campaign ;-)

I think showing bias of any kind on a given subject eventually leads to questions of objectivity on all subjects. It’s hard to believe you can report on some topics without bias and others with overwhelming bias (donating money is a strong signal of overwhelming bias).

So, it depends on how much you value your role as a commentator (which welcomes bias) or as a reporter where it would start to undermine your credibility. As you mention you’ve already made your thoughts known so maybe the latter is already compromised.

Sean says: “showing bias of any kind .. lead to questions of objectivity.” I guess this might be a concern if there were any non-brain-damaged humans who were capable of objectivity. However, given where evolution has taken us, we should simply assume subjectivity.

Attempts to forbid or hide “showing of bias” are simply obscuring reality. For a journalist to have opinions but to then try to hide them is just a form of lying. It is dishonest and dishonorable. Even if you stupidly consider “having a bias” to be problem, you should still strongly encourage anything that will cause the journalists to reveal such bias.

Frankly, I’d like to encourage all journalists to do two things: First, contribute to the campaigns of those they support and Second, to *disclose* who they have contributed to. It’s best if we know what their biases are.

In any case, citizens have a right to contribute to any campaign they want. Journalists are no special class of citizen. They have the same rights and obligations as the rest of us.

bob wyman

Go ahead, Jeff.

She’s toast; they could use the money for butter.

It is not like your choice was any type of secret.
I would rather know up front that one gives to a candidate or a cause.

And now for a couple of rants:

I really think that todays funding should be completely open and on line from the moment it leaves the donors pocket or account.
Also where the candidate or campaign spends ANY money should be on line too.

This part might be a little overboard, but once they are elected or appointed one should be able to do a FOIA on both the public and private accounts of any official using or getting paid by taxpayer money.

Jeff,
Not a problem as long as it is not hidden from public view. Kind of like a while back when Wall Street analysts would recommend stocks. They owned them and were doing their best to convince others to buy it too. Thereby raising the price and making them a lot of money.

Whenever I watch business shows there are almost always disclaimers saying if the analyst owns or has a direct stake in what they are talking about. Sometimes they do. When that is the case one can look at their analysis with a few grains of salt.

If you put your cards on the table, your readers will gain insight about your writings, thoughts and ideas. You build credibility by not hiding the truth.

Honesty and integrity are important. People are skeptical because too often information has been kept hidden.

It’s the age of transparency. Make it known. Make it clear and disclose it.

Act of grace? no.
Venial sin? no.
Something acceptable? yes.

If you donate to a charity, does this make you a corrupt journalist? The nature of politics mixing with journalism is along the lines of science mixing with religion; Dawkins dares spake of God and is vilified. Journalist dares contribute to campaign and is…to be determined?

It’s your money.

Maybe HRC can put it to good use to find out if people she claims died because they were denied health care in fact weren’t denied at all.

Just tell her it’s part of your transparency campaign.

journalists putting their money where there mouth is – good. clinton on the other hand…

Do it. You’ve never been shy about your support for Clinton, so I see it as no big deal.

While I’m about as polar opposite from you politically as one can be, I have a very high regard for you and your blog because of your honesty and consistency. You are also one of the few people trained in old-school journalim who has identified the dinosaur-killing asteroid that is coming and speaks up about it. Most of your colleagues simply cower and whimper.

I don’t see you as a journalist, even though you teach it at CUNY. In my opinion, there is no such profession anymore, if ever there was one.

There is only information sharing.

If it is unethical for you to contribute to Hillary’s campaign, wouldn’t it also be logically unethical for you to vote for her (or anybody)? Journalists are also citizens, after all.

You’ve made your choice clear, you are not (as far as I can tell) earning your living by reporting on the campaign, so I can’t see the problem.

My problem is with all the “journalists” and talking heads who insist they are neutral and objective while at the same time they slant (to be kind) their coverage to favor one candidate over another. And the media’s inability or unwillingness to fess up to their biases is driving me bananas. (In short, I prefer Lou Dobbs’ honest disclosure of his prejudices to Chris Matthews’ absurd & dishonest insistence that he is equally hard on everybody.)

I miss Walter Cronkite.

Sure, Jeff, donate, vote for, and/or rant about the candidate of your choice. But after you do that, just don’t expect me to ascribe any credibility to your reportage of the campaign.

It’s an antiquated and useless notion for journalists to pretend they don’t have opinions. Everyone has them. It’s dishonest to pretend you don’t. As a matter of practicing their craft and profession competently journalists cannot let their opinions influence their work any more than a doctor can let a personal opinion about a patient corrupt advice to that patient. Bad journalists who use their position to advance a personal agenda at the expense of accuracy and fairness should be fired, the same way a lousy carpenter should be fired for doing a lousy job framing a house. Slanted reporting equals incompetence. Editors and media bosses should stick up for the quality and integrity of their journalists instead of forcing them to present a false front to the public and acceding to the critics and political pushers who are out to destroy them whether they have opinions or not.