The fact that Fox News does not deploy the same is irrelevant. All companies have different polices and you can’t use the lack of or inclusion of one from another as an excuse. That’s ridiculous.
I agree with your statement there. I feel however that Fox SHOULD have such a policy,if they really want to keep talking about being "fair and balanced". It might also be a good idea if they didn't have people that pimped fake gold investment schemes for their advertisers.
I also agree that it is a good policy for news agencies to deploy this policy. It at least can cover one aspect of so called unbiased news. MSNBC is as partician as any news agency can posibally get. MSNBC has met with Obama and his staff in the White House to discuss strategy and news reporting. So this policy cannot and should never be seen as an acid test for unbiased reporting. But I do agee it's good one. One that FOX and the rest should have.
I totally agree. The way I see it is,if you have the policy it doesn't mean your not biased and that your organization is fair and neutral. However,if you want to be unbiased and fair,it certainly seems you should have such a policy in place. Like most ethics issues,its not even a matter of whether such a donation means that your biased. We all know,donations or not that journalists,or in the case of infotainment personalities,people vaguely similar to journalists, have preferences as far as politics go. What the donations do is create an appearance of bias. As anyone who knows anything about ethics violations can tell you,the appearance of bias is as bad as actual bias and both should be avoided.
I understand that in many of these cases,the people involved are not exactly journalists and in fact,some people on fox "news" made the argument that they were NOT journalists but instead were in the field of "news entertainment",similarly I think to the way that Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with "that woman". Its all about re-defining things to excuse your actions. Still,they are on a news network and I think their actions should to some extent be held to journalistic standards. I would think that is why there is a clause in the contract that it needs to be vetted by management,so that it can be decided if its appropriate. I suspect that a physician who did segments on health wanting to give 500 dollars to a local candidate running for mayor in his home town might be allowed to do that. A commentator who had a show about politics and often had politicians on his show,that wanted to give moneys to the campaign of a senator that regularly appears on his show might not be allowed to. It does not just give the appearance that he is biased. That part is probably clear from his commentary on politics in general. What it does is give the appearance that the commentator is an active part of the campaign and using his show as a vehicle to advance his chosen candidates. That crosses the line. Thats why its certainly appropriate for it to be approved by management.
