Posted on 10/13/2015 10:21:09 AM PDT by struggle
Mark Hemingway writes that these journos did not have to pay the $20,000 to join,but that having these journos on the roster helped sell membership to donors who wanted access to the journos. That means they were sort of “at service” of the CGI. But what about the opposite? How about journos who may want access the rich members? Journos are not supposed to pay for access to stories. What benefit does a journalist get for being a member of the CGI if they don’t actually pay to join? If they don’t pay they are not contributing in any financial way towards the “charities”. So what and why are they signing up for?
It doesn’t make sense, except if you think of it as a big clubhouse where money and favors are traded. We have rich tradition of that in the USA such as Tammany Hall and the Chicago Machine/Mayor Daley and so on... but for journalists to accept $20,000 in gifts to a “charity” membership makes no sense on its face. They are supposed to be impartial, supposed to be able to report on anything newsworthy. Seems to me they sold out their ethics by accepting this free membership.
Very good point. Somehow the media always “comes to its senses” when its time for Hillary and the Dems to waddle onto the stage, and only five deep.
But with ten Republicans in one debate, and four to seven in another, it’s a free for all, right out of the gate. We are used like shooting fish in a barrel.
FAUX likes it that way, as well as CNN. Just not for the short pants candidates on the Democrat side.
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.