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.
His crow’s seat in the media.
Yep. Disney has been on the cutting edge of America’s descent into neo paganism and cultural decadence.
George Stephanopoulos asks stupid questions about contraception
Even Romney gives a great answer and DNC-run Steph doesn't let the stupid question go!
Payback. Among other things - it is reported that years ago, a bank fast tracked and approved GS for a mortgage loan (favored rate of course) for a dual use property.
That he's a smarmy little weasel? That's a start......................
I didn’t realize anyone thought ABC actually had a news agency! How could anyone take Stephie as anything other than the Clinton’s Press Secretary?
Definitely!
"Smarmy little weasel?! Why ... yes I am! But no one will do anything about it!"
Pubs should simply refuse to interview with “journalists” like Stephanopoulos, Crowley, & the rest. If these networks want access, they will have to provide unbiased interviewers & especially not anyone remotely connected to the Clintons in this election cycle. That pretty much rules out even the cleaning crews at CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, & ABC.
Better yet, Pub candidates should seek out real journalists, do numerous filmed interviews, & give these so called news orgs. access only to the videos. We are watching videos of the candidates, anyway.
The only way the blatant partisanship of the national media will end is if conservatives & independents boycott these networks. Otherwise, the news media will become, has become the open, accepted propaganda arm of the Left, the Pravdas of the USA.
> So far, Cruz seems to be the only one aware of how to dodge these questions.
Which means he’s the More intelligent of the bunch and should probably be sitting in the WH on January 20, 2017
My apologies to a the weasels out there.................
Not breaking any ground here but for years it has been obvious to me that the media is as much a political player as any of the other three branches (really four) of government. When it comes to your Senator or Representative (especially a Republican) we know everything about them and their family. Everything they have ever said or done is scrutinized to the nth degree. The Media selects a side that jives with their agenda and makes certain that scrutiny is applied appropriately.
When it comes to the members of the Media we know almost NOTHING. They are never scrutinized or exposed. I have been saying for years that we should expose them to the same level of scrutiny, for example investigate and publish every aspect of their and their families personal lives. Could it be that at last, before the campaign season kicks into gear, someone, somewhere is learning and is taking these arse hats out? I sure hope so.
I have always been mystified why such publications are considered prestigious by anyone other than lowlifes and dupes.
IOW, a younger version of Harry Reid, eh?
I think George Stephanopoulos lied about an ABC group researching the Clinton Cash book and coming up with ‘nothing’....
ABC needs to tell us who’s on the ‘research team’.. or if it was some DNC or Clinton operatives who gave him ‘the research’...
I smell a big lie on this one... Maybe Fox or O’Reilly could look into it...even Greta... she’s good at catching lies.
I try not to think of this little weasel at all...afraid I'll puke.
I’ve never heard how the Stephanopoulos contributions came to light in the first place.
How did that happen?
Bookmark
I think George Stephanopoulos lied about an ABC group researching the Clinton Cash book and coming up with ‘nothing’....
ABC needs to tell us who’s on the ‘research team’.. or if it was some DNC or Clinton operatives who gave him ‘the research’...
I smell a big lie on this one..
Breitbart, Malkin, Drudge, Coulter I hope will investigate.
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.