Skip to main content

View Diary: CBS STONEWALLS Lesley Stahl Conflict of Interest: UPDATE...YOU WON!!! (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This was disclosed. And her "position" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Argyrios

    is that she is a volunteer serving as a member of an advisory board. For a non-profit foundation. This is about as innocuous a connection as could exist. No one has yet articulated exactly what the problem is here. Should no journalists serve on any advisory boards? Or is it that no journalists should serve on advisory boards of foundations that we liberals disagree with?

    •  On boards seeking to influence public policy. (21+ / 0-)

      From the NYT policy:

      95. Journalists should stand apart from institutions that make news. Staff members may not serve on government boards or commissions, paid or unpaid. They may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees or similar groups except those serving journalistic organizations or otherwise promoting journalism education. Depending on circumstances, newsroom heads may permit staff members to serve on a board of trustees or visitors for a school, college or university, especially one with a family connection. Upon request, newsroom heads may also authorize a staff member to appear before a local school board to advocate decisions that may directly affect the journalist's children, but only if the issue falls outside the staff member's coverage responsibilities.

      96. Our company respects community citizenship. Normally the restriction on joining trustee boards or advisory committees will not apply to local or neighborhood organizations that are unlikely to generate news of broader interest and those that do not generally seek to shape public policy. These typically include houses of worship, community charities, civic clubs, local libraries, fine arts groups, hobby groups, youth athletic leagues, country clubs and alumni groups. But news is unpredictable. Even neighborhood institutions sometimes find themselves in the spotlight. In that event, a staff member with ties to the institution must stand aside from any controversy and not take part in the coverage. In no case may a staff member's affiliation with our company be used to further the goals of such a nonprofit or volunteer organization.

    •  So, if you read the NYT policy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dadoodaman, YucatanMan

      I think you would agree that she violates it, right?
      This is a simple yes or no question.  

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

      by voicemail on Thu May 09, 2013 at 12:46:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no idea. But say she is violating it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Argyrios

        Does she work for them? I don't think so. I think she works for CBS.

        •  The concern, for at least some of us in this (8+ / 0-)

          diary, is not simply whether CBS will permit her to be on Peterson's board of directors.  The concern is whether it's ethically permissable and appropriate for a national-level journalist to be on the board of a group with a partisan policy agenda, thereby announcing she is committed to certain policy positions, and then to cover those policy issues while  pretending to be just giving the facts.

          If we think that CBS's standards for what they will permit are inappropriately loose and allow too much partisanship in news coverage, then we certainly should object and yell at them.  That at least put them on notice that their grotesquely slanted news coverage of things like the budget debate is starting to annoy us.  It won't accomplish any more that that, but hey, we might as well.

          THe NYT standards still cling, at least formally, to an earlier and stricter sense of the journalist's commitment to observe and report more than advocate.

          Peterson advocates for the 1% and in favor of continuing to concentrate wealth at the top.  His group is not a "charity" as that has been traditionally understood.  

          To my mind, the English language takes precedence over continually re-written IRS regulations.

          "Fix the Debt" doesn't exist to exercise philanthropy, to give out money in generous ways that help the poor, or support the arts and sciences, or underwrite health research, or fund libraries and scholarships, etc.  It exists to help the 1% acheive their political goals.  THAT is a fact.

          IRS regulations have broadened their donor-friendly definition of "charity" to an Orwellian degree. Left-leaning groups sometimes find that useful, as well as rightist ones.  But we don't need to play mind games by pretending that Leslie Stahl is out doing charity work.  She's supporting a political agenda, an austerity agenda that will hurt our economy and punish the most vulnerable. She can get away with that, since she works for CBS, but there's no reason we should pretend she's still acting like a journalist.

          --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

          by Fiona West on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:57:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's make it simple and end it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, tommymet

          You started this above by saying that directors of foundations don't get compensation. You changed that later to indicate that members of advisory boards of foundations don't get paid.

          You responded to a question about whether or not her position violates the posted NYTimes policies for their journalists by saying she doesn't work for the NYTimes and you have no idea if she violates THEIR policy. I'll assume from your dismissive attitude all around that you didn't read it.  I did. If she worked for them, she might well be in violation.  

          You responded that CBS has a policy, which we haven't seen and you probably haven't either, and that's the only one that's relevant.  

          I'd say she's in violation of the Times' policy and that's precisely irrelevant to her, but not to me.

          I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

          by voicemail on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:48:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Lots of people (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nosleep4u, jedennis, Dallasdoc

      get paid big money working for non profits , especially on the upper end , that should be thrown in there if you are going to keep emphasizing the word CHARITY  

      And under tax codes , "non profit" does not translate into CHARITY , it is about as snake oil as it gets  

      •  She doesn't work for the nonprofit. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Argyrios

        The extent of misinformation here is astounding. She is not an employee or executive; she is not on the board of directors. She is a volunteer on an advisory board! Does anyone here understand the difference between working for a foundation and serving on an advisory board?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site