News Corp. Million Dollar Donation Sparks Ethics Concerns
August 18, 2010 6:57 pm ET by Joe Strupp
Journalism ethics experts and news veterans are criticizing News Corp. for its $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association, saying it is the height of conflict of interest.
Some also said the company's news outlets at Fox News, Dow Jones and the New York Post will likely not be able to offer the amount of disclosure needed to clearly inform the public on related stories.
"In an ideal world, they would be transparent about that," said NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard. "But I think it would be really cumbersome. I don't think they should be giving money to this group in the first place."
Shepard said for the parent company to give such a sizeable contribution undermines news ethics: "I can't imagine NPR or The New York Times giving money to a particular political group. Your job is to be neutral and to not take positions and this is supporting one political party over another."
Kelly McBride, an ethics instructor at The Poynter Institute, agreed: "It reinforces the notion that the media organization itself has a political bias. For the consumer who wants non-partisan news, they are less-likely to seek out that source."
Asked about the need for greater News Corp. disclosure because of this contribution, McBride said: "to be perfectly ethical, they should not make the donation - you are compromising the appearance of fairness. Transparency doesn't erase the act itself."
Calls for comment to the New York Post and Fox News today have not yet been returned. Dow Jones & Company, which oversees Dow Jones Newswires, The Wall Street Journal and Barron's, offered a one-line statement when asked about the potential conflict: "The donation has no impact on our journalists or their reporting."
Still, the donation raised concerns among those who critique news fairness and teach young journalists.
"They try to say they aren't that partisan, but things like this only confirm that suspicion in the public's mind," said Fred Brown, vice chair of the Society of Professional Journalists ethics committee. "If you are going to call yourself fair and balanced, you can't really do this."
Brown, who lives in Colorado, noted that the RGA has produced numerous "attack ads" in his state this year: "We have seen a lot of them."
Tim McGuire, an ethics and business instructor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University, said such donations hurt the company's image.
"By the ethical standards we operated by for the past 40 or 50 years, it is outrageous," said McGuire, a former editor of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. "One of the issues this raises is what do you want the press to be in the future?
Chuck Baldwin, faculty member at the Al Neuharth Media Center at the University of South Dakota, agreed: "We draw the line at the appearance of impropriety. When you do that, you give people cause to question you. It matters what the public thinks. What the average person on the street thinks. That is what is wrong with this."
But most of those who spoke with me said it is not practical to offer disclosure on each related news cast or in stories related to the Republican Party because there are so many.
"I don't think it is possible to do it in an appropriate fashion," Baldwin stated. "Transparency is a marvelous thing. But it would be kind of silly to say it at the top of each story."
McGuire added: "They should be disclosing. But Fox has changed all of the rules: They disclose (their Republican ties) every time they open their mouth."
A little projection, declarations of inconsequence, feelings of being part of victory over liberals, and that's ok. Its for the greater good y'know.
A harddriven knee into the greater good's nads has some attraction right now.
It is entirely because the media organization has a political bias that its audience seeks it out, not the absence of one, in the case of the Fake News Network - a.k.a. as the primary source of the extremist talking heads that cater to the fRight Wing extremists.
A private company gives their OWN money not TAKEN from people, to a polital party and you think it is horrible.
I guess you are ok with taking money for politics. not earning money to give for politics.
A union, taking money from their members and giving it to political parties and/or individuals running for office, is no different than the NRA doing the same thing, or Greenpeace, or the Heritage Foundation, or the ACLU, or the National Right to Life, or Planned Parenthood, or the Human Rights Campaign, or the American Family Association, or the AMA, or dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of other special interest groups. These are all organizations with a clear agenda and clear political objectives and goals, and they do so openly.
News Corp makes the claim that Fox is an objective news organization, and goes as far to tell us that they are "Fair and Balanced;" a laughable claim even before this huge, one sided donation came to light given the large number of current and former Republican operatives on their payroll, and the endless stream of Republican candidates, and Republican political action committee representatives you'll see on their programs shamelessly shilling for donations.
It could generously be claimed they had been merely blurring the lines of journalism integrity and ethics. With this donation they have taken a huge step across it.
The News Corp owned Barron's and the Wall Street Journal got it right when they said the donation wouldn't effect their reporting--their reporting, like all other News Corp outlets, had already lost creditability.
Quoting NPR? They beg for money and don't give anything back. Reminds me of MMFA. C'mon guys, let's get some real reporting not just quoting each other.
Really, what are you smoking?
I wasn't talking about the GOP. I was talking about the cozy relationship of NPR and MMFA. They just feed off each other without any REAL reporting.
I appreciate that this one actually has proof and details. You should try it sometime.
Really, it always best when making as statement such as the one I've highlighted to give references that solidify what would otherwise be taken as vague generalities.
Sigh, I do know better.
Something like the cozy relationship between the Wall Street Journal, NY Post and Faux Noise?
They're always quoting each other in stories with no disclosure. And their talking headcases appear on Faux Noise all the time.
You don't know what you're talking about. You're just lashing out at organizations that don't repeat the same misinformation and propaganda you eat. You can't prove or make a case for anything you said. You just operate on auto-knee-jerk mode.
Now the real point I wanted to make it is:
What has gone wrong with this country? Why are we having a debate between adults and people with a five year olds mentality? Five year olds will insist on something no matter what, hoping if they just throw a big enough tantrum the parents will become exhausted and they'll get their way or the adults will stop correcting them. That's what our political discourse is now, nothing more. Stubborn, petulant, selfish children insisting that we accept their lies and misbehavior and throwing a tantrum when they don't get their way.
Why do we even entertain their lies and temper tantrums?