Do you think journalists should be allowed to give to political campaigns?

[Drunken Irishman]

There's an article on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/) that shows a list of journalists that have given to political campaigns. What's your opinion on this? Forget for a second as to whether they give to conservative candidates/causes and liberal candidates/causes, do you think it's right? Obviously this isn't about being unbiased, since even if you don't allow political contributions the person still has the right to vote and hold personal political beliefs. This is more done in hopes of showing neutrality, instead of favoritism of one party or cause. But does it hurt when these journalists, local or national, give to candidates as private citizens? Is it right?

[babylonsister]

1. I don't have a problem with it, as long as they're ... wait for it ...

fair and balanced in their reporting! :rofl: :yoiks:

[MNDemNY]

2. NO, they should be barred from giving, so should retail clerks and dog groomers.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. lol

[BOSSHOG]

3. Yes as I think military personnel and clergymen and farmers

and every other American Citizen should be able to. Journalists are under a greater sense of scrutiny as well they should be.

If baptist preachers can politic from the pulpit with a captive audience in a tax exempt status, a newspaper reporter sure as hell can give to the candidate of his choice.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. An anchor in Omaha (FOX) was fired for supporting a Democratic candidate.

She had a photo on her myspace with him and asked her friends to vote for him. I'm not sure how this helped or hurt her reporting, but she was canned last week because of it.

That's extreme to me.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Probably more like she was fired for supporting a DEMOCRAT,

as a reporter in NEBRASKA working for FOX.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I wouldn't doubt it.

[MADem]

13. Military personnel can support whosoever they want, so long as they do it privately.

They are not supposed to say ANYTHING when they wear their uniform. They are not to use their rank or office to influence anyone to vote in a particular fashion. Even if a junior officer is serving as a voting officer, the only job is to get people to vote, not tell them for whom they should vote.

It's also not too cool to donate to a presidential campaign of an individual, at least in any great amount (the whole commander-in-chief thing)--but you can donate to the DNC or RNC with no repercussions whatsoever.

I think military people SHOULD stay out of public politics. If they want to participate, run for office, shill for their candidate, protest their boss, they need to submit their letter of resignation.

They can NEVER do that legally, anyway, on a military installation. It's a written DOD directive that forbids it.

If they want to go to a convention, take off the uniform, put on the play clothes, and off they go--as a private citizen, not as (RANK/NAME/Branch of Service).

This shit where you see guys in uniform at the conventions? It's fucking WRONG. And it's only the GOP that pulls that shit. Of course, who was gonna convict them, or even bring it up, if they wanted to keep their jobs????

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Do you think journalist should have to give up thier political/civil rights to be journalists?

No, I don't. Who cares, people can donate to whoever they want. There isn't even (thank goddess) a licence required to be a journalist. All you need is a crayon and some paper, or a computer.

Why would anyone even consider that journalists wouldn't be allowed to contribute to a campaign?

[BOSSHOG]

8. Complex situation

I'm wondering if her boss at the station was a supporter of republicans.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. A lot of TV stations, newspapers and magazines have banned contributing to campaigns.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Well any journalist has to make their own decision on what kind of crap they

are willing to put up with for a job.

If it were me, I'd lie to the boss and give quietly and if I were caught then figure oh well. Considering the corporations who own the papers/news outlet seem to give money to who they please it seems a little petty and hypocritical.

[MADem]

7. I think they ought to be able to expose their biases. Imagine if Brian Williams said

"As you know, I am a registered Republican and supporter of George Bush, and this is why I got that swell interview with him down at NOLA..." or Timmy Russert said "Although I've been supporting the Bush team since my old GE boss Jack Welch took me by the hand and told me I'd be rich if I did, the reason I was forced to fit my fat ass into a tiny Captain's chair in the White House interview with Bush, and to balance my notes on my fat, dimpled knee, was because Bush was mad at me for not reporting on his war deeds with sufficient enthusiasm..."

I could STAND to listen to the news from a GOP shill if they self-identified. I'd have no problem at all "considering the source." It's the lying and the fake attempts at even-handedness, that are so insincere as to be absurd, that rankle.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Like I said...

Donating or not won't change their political opinion. If they have a bias, it will be shown, whether the campaign contribution records back it up or not.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Yes

[bamacrat]

12. No, that would destroy all objectivity..

not that there is hardly any left but still. I believe the state of the MSM hit rock bottom and many people realize how fake they are when Tony Snow began working for B*sh. That is was and always will be fucking disgustingly sad.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Yes--to me, contributions are a form of speech. As long as their journalism

work is not involved or alluded to in any way, what's the problem? Money given as a private citizen does not constitute public endorsement.

[onenote]

17. I don't have a problem with them contributing. And I don't have a problem with those

contributions being publicly reported.

[rucky]

19. I'd rather their political leanings be made public. n/t