One question which has gone largely unaddressed in the Keith Olbermann controversy is this: Is there a difference between donating to a candidate before they appear on your program and donating to a candidate after they appear on your program? What changes, if anything, with the exchange of cash?
Olbermann made his three donations following Democrat Raul Grijalva’s appearance on his program on October 28, and following earlier appearances by his two other benefactors, Jack Conway of Kentucky and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona—he never interviewed or explicitly reported on the candidates post-donation. But Olbermann was primary host of MSNBC’s election coverage, which, to varying degrees, addressed the three races in which the politicians were competing after they had received his money. And they could appear on his program down the line.
The Olbermann issue raises broader questions about the way that money can change reporting—potentially overnight. Hypothetically, we wonder what happens when a journalist reports on a candidate on Wednesday, donates to her campaign that night, then reports on her again on Thursday. What, if anything, has changed? How does that affect the journalism, and the way that journalism is perceived?
Keith can't be considered a journalist, at least not a serious journalist. He's an entertainer and a commentator. Journalism requires at least a modicum of balance. He, Limbaugh, O'Reilly all fall into the same category.
Consequently, I don't believe he is held to any ethical standard. Of course, there is that issue of the employment contract. Those pesky contracts....
#1 Posted by Tom Gallagher, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 04:37 PM
The problem is not journalists donating money to candidates, it's candidates and political organizations employing journalists. The direction in which the money flows is key.
#2 Posted by Larry Maxcy, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 08:00 PM
All that's required to be a journalist is to not lie except occasionally by accident. By this criteria, Olbermann qualifies whereas Rush Limbaugh doesn't.
But at any rate, employees of any kind, not just journalists, have no business having political opinions, let alone donating money based on them. That privilege is best reserved for the owners and management of corporations.
#3 Posted by Frank Jacobs, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 11:40 PM
As a pal of mine suggested, Olbermann should just call himself a corporation and he could donate whenever & wherever he wanted. Check w/ John Roberts.
#4 Posted by Steve Daley, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 11:53 AM
Ethical Principle: Anyone involved in presenting fact-based coverage or commentary of public matters to its public should avoid entanglements that might call their credibility into question when reporting on such matters. When such entanglements are unavoidable, timely transparency is required so that that public is in a position to assess the reliability of that newsperson’s reportage or commentary.
This principle covers objective and advocacy journalists, pundits, anchorpersons, pundit/anchorpersons and experts such as retired colonels and generals commenting on the war, and practicing lawyers commenting on trials and other legal matters.
As we cannot truly know when someone in Olbermann’s position forms the intent to donate money to a candidate, I would argue that Olbermann had an ethical duty to tell MSNBC about his donation as soon as possible, allowing MSNBC enough time to decide to drop him as one of the host of its election coverage.
I don’t believe he could have made a credible host if he had appeared presenting the election coverage with a crawl announcing that he made the donation. Olbermann’s conflict would have become a distraction from the far more important news. And, I don’t think having someone step in for a few sentences to present election coverage about Jack Conway of Kentucky and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona would have resolved the matter.
Even if Olbermann did not assume the role of election coverage host, timely disclosure was required. Countdown’s public is more discrete than the label “Democrat” implies. His public—rank-and-file Democrats, such as the Democrats who might have voted against Conway and Giffords in the primaries, left of center independents, progressives, non-ideologues who just like his snarkiness—should be in a position to judge whether he is an honest broker.
Moreover, Olbermann appears to try to be an honest broker, which further obligates him to avoid donating to candidates, and demands that he disclose such conflicts of interests—or the appearance of—to his public.
—Arthur S. Hayes
#5 Posted by Arthur S. Hayes, CJR on Tue 16 Nov 2010 at 11:55 AM