Replies

I take your point. I just don't agree with it. I would rather Rather just sent the max contribution to Kerry. Just let it all hang out. We all know which reporters of renown are voting for Bush and which for Kerry, to a large degree. So why the Kabuki play about it all?

I suppose your concept could work if there was full disclosure every time a conflicted person filed a report or news story.

Seems like there wouldn't be any time left for the news. Or maybe you'd put it in the TV's crawl.

So for Dan Rather, the crawl would say (trying to be funny):
"Disclosures: This reporter carries an animus towards the President's father that has never abated because he was put in his place in an interview 15 years ago, throws temper tantrums when his broadcasts are delayed by sports events that go past their scheduled time, has raised money for Democrat candidates, and is generally a pain in the a** to work with.")

Just curious: would your answer change if it were demonstrated that Mr. Ballentine is ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING for Kerry?

From the "Working for Change" web site:

HERE

(note: the article is dated 8-24-04)

Kerry strategists agree: "The Bush campaign has got Kerry written all over it," said Roger Ballentine, a senior environmental strategist for the Kerry campaign. "From Day 1, the goal of the Bush campaign has not been to get voters to like their candidate and respect his record, but to get people to dislike John Kerry even though on this issue Kerry is widely thought to be the greenest candidate America has ever seen. They want people to go into the voter booth, hold their nose, and pick the lesser of two evils."

+++++

This is an even deeper conflict of interest than the ones I've pointed out. As far as I'm concerned, it's game, set, match. She's got to go.