Posted on 05/18/2015 6:13:00 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
What to think about George Stephanopoulos?
Some years ago, I worked with a young man who would later become momentarily infamous, during the season of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, when he was found to have fabricated aspects of stories for a very high-profile national news outlet. I found all those episodes maddening: As a writer for small community newspapers, I was used to being blown off by sources, accustomed to politicians and other worthies refusing to return my calls. But if you’re a writer for the Washington Post or The New Yorker, people pick up the phone when you ring.
There’s no excuse for the small fry, and there’s really, really no excuse for bigfoot reporters from the majors.
Call me a snob, but I have always been mystified when fabrications show up in the pages of prestigious publications such as the New York Times or The New Republic. I recently taught a seminar at Hillsdale, partly on the subject of Rolling Stone’s shameful, fictitious account of a brutal gang rape at the University of Virginia, a crime that did not in reality happen. How does this sort of thing make it into print, not in some backwater weekly but in a magazine with real editorial resources? We all make errors, and sometimes we make embarrassing errors, and the potential for making embarrassing errors increases the higher up the journalistic food chain one goes, simply because nobody is paying much attention to youngsters writing business features for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Rolling Stone’s Sabrina Rubin Erdely got badly snookered by a source. That happens. I once got badly snookered by a source and published a caustic editorial criticizing the University of Texas for doing something that it hadn’t actually done. That was when I was in college, and that is, to some extent, what college newspapers are for.
You’d expect that standards would become more stringent as one ascends the ladder of prestige, but in that regard journalism is no different from the general run of business, in which as often as not standards of professional conduct decline as the stakes grow larger. When I was editing a small newspaper in the Philadelphia suburbs, one of my reporters asked for a meeting with me, which was in itself unusual — my standing policy for reporters was that after hiring them I did not care if I ever saw them again, so long as their stories showed up on time. I’d assumed we were going to do the usual thing where he asked for a raise and I told him no, but he sheepishly explained that he needed to modify his beat because he was beginning to develop a personal relationship with one of the people he covered. His reasoning was sound: Whether it worked out or went nowhere, he could not claim to be disinterested.
What would have happened if he hadn’t told me? I’d have fired him. And if I hadn’t, somebody would have fired me. And I would have deserved it.
Conflicts of interest are common in small-town journalism. I employed a columnist who was a Democratic activist and public-relations consultant, who sometimes needed to be reminded that she wasn’t allowed to write articles about her clients. Police reporters are infamous for getting themselves captured, socially or romantically, by their beats — one of the telltale signs being when they start writing the way cops talk, e.g. “officers responded to the scene,” a phrase that is true only when police exclaim: “Holy cow! Look at that scene!” The sort of people who like to write opinion columns are also the sort of people who feel called to activism and campaign work, and smaller publications rely on them because they’re cheap — generally free; “free” being every newspaper publisher’s favorite word — and because they often are in fact the best people for the job.
But ABC News isn’t the Muleshoe Journal; ABC News can hire whomever it wants. But Washington, too, is a small town, with a substantial overlap between journalism and politics. And hiring George Stephanopoulos wasn’t a terrible idea: He’s smart, he’s articulate, he knows everybody. He was a Clinton functionary with deep ties and longstanding loyalty to all things Clinton. Is that a problem? Sure, of course, but it’s a problem that can be addressed in no small part with simple disclosure.
Which is to say, the one thing that ABC News and Stephanopoulos needed to do is the one thing that they failed to do.
That $50,000 donation that has since grown to $75,000 may be chump change for Stephanopoulos — it certainly is for the Clintons — but if it were 20 bucks, you’d still want to disclose it if you were, to consider a random, implausible, and crazy hypothetical, overseeing highly critical coverage of a book alleging wrongdoing by the Clintons through the instrument of their family foundation.
Stephanopoulos has offered a half-hearted apology: “I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” But “extra mile” assumes a previous mile, and he did not really hike an inch to disclose this conflict — not an “appearance of a conflict,” but an actual conflict. The Clintons’ relationship with the eponymous nonprofit organization is a legitimate public issue, and Stephanopoulos has significant relationships with both family and foundation.
It is impossible to see how Stephanopoulos could do his job with any integrity in an environment in which the Clintons and their foundation will be central to the political news for the foreseeable future. Certainly not after concealing his relationship with the foundation. ABC News owes it to itself to live up to at least the standards of a small-town weekly newspaper. It owes them a lot more than that, in fact, but it cannot deliver the goods with Stephanopoulos at the desk.
Why fire him? GOP Senate Majority "leader" Mitch McConnell gleefully agreed to appear on his show this weekend giving validation to hyper partisan liberal media.
One huge reason that Stephanopoulos has a moderator gig on ABC is because the GOP validated it. Washington GOP'rs are in on the game it seems.
This tells me right away that this guy wasn't much of an editor. I've been a managing editor and it was my job not only to know my reporters but also their beats. That doesn't mean you ask personal questions, but it does mean you communicate and give guidance where necessary. It turns out he had an honest reporter working for him and he found out by accident.
Thanks.
When it comes to politics, the GOP and their followers are the most stupid, ignorant bunch to ever have more than two brain cells tied together. I'm ashamed at the lack of political savvy that the GOP has. The GOP only have a majority because the democRATs have proven their flawed policies on their own.
If a child sits on an ant pile and gets bitten, they learn quickly not to ever do it again. Why is this different in politics? GOP candidates, Sunday after Sunday gleefully appear on these low rated shows hosted by hyper partisan marxists, only to get burned with questions like "when did you stop beating your wife", then complain when the host is outed as a democrat operative? The GOP validates and feeds the liberal media
STOP APPEARING ON THEIR SHOWS/NETWORKS!
He answered. "I will answer the questions when you ask Debbie blabbermouth if she thinks aborting an 8 pound baby at 39 weeks is OK with her?
Also Bush, could have answered knowing what I know now, that Iraq was the success story that Joe Biden was claiming in 2009, but now it has totally collapsed and is being used as a Caliphate, due to the withdrawal done by the current POTUS. Now with that in mind, the total withdraw of all our troops and the CURRENT administration not mindful of its total collapse, doing nothing about it, no I would not have invaded Iraq.
...but sadly, she contributed to the Clintons too.
He shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And neither should Tim Russert have been on MTP, even though foolish conservative hosts say he was even-handed. Far from it. He would put the conservative on first every time and then put the liberal on to dispute everything the conservative said, and no one could dispute the liberal because he/she was the last one on. He had other ways of getting his point of view across that the conservative was off the wall while the lib was OK.
George Steps on all of us should never have been hired as, or referred to, as a "journalist." Nor Tim Ruskert. Note, AFAIK no one calls Chris Motormouth a "journalist."
And "journalist" occupies a lower rung on the evolutionary ladder than "reporter."
A simple test...would Karl Rove ever be hired as a "journalist?"
Can “Kerry Smith” be reached for comment, I wonder?
Reality does not match the narrative in their little brains, quaint notions about media and democracy. Crazy or stupid? Who knows?
Working on it. Stay tuned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.