new rule at CBS: no political contributions

[flowomo]

New Standards For CBS News

"CBS News employees recently received a revised version of the CBS News Standards book. I talked to Linda Mason, CBS News Senior Vice President, Standards and Special Projects, about the revisions.

"One change from the previous version: A rule forbidding contributions to political campaigns. Such contributions had not been prohibited before.

"We want our reporters to be absolutely pure when they interview candidates of either side or issues that relate to either side," said Mason. "Today, with the instant reporting of political contributions, it has become obvious who gives and to whom, and this we felt would compromise the people who were doing reporting involved with political issues."

(more) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/06/publiceye/entry2071663.shtml

[AX10]

1. Well now that the Democrats are on the verge of regaining power...

NATIONWIDE, we can't have any reports supporting the Democrats. But it was O.K for them to bend over for the Repubs.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Bam.

[MrModerate]

2. I think that may be a tad illegal . . .

My company trends heavily 'Lican, but wouldn't *dream* of telling employees not to donate to political parties. I'm wondering whether the CBS lawyers have really looked at this.

[LoZoccolo]

3. This actually works opposite to how they'd like.

The political contribution is a manifestation of their political leanings, which they will have whether or not they give money to a campaign. Before, we would know those political leanings. Today, we just have one less obvious way of knowing.

This doesn't keep reporters from being biased, it just tries to keep us from knowing about it. This is aimed to work to the benefit of CBS's reputation without a commeasurate benefit to their reporting.

[ContraBass Black]

6. It works exactly how they'd like.

"This doesn't keep reporters from being biased, it just tries to keep us from knowing about it. This is aimed to work to the benefit of CBS's reputation without a commeasurate benefit to their reporting."

[LoZoccolo]

7. True, that should have been "how they purport." n/t

[Lerkfish]

4. okeydokey, as soon as CBS as a corporation stops fellating Bushco.

[Mist]

5. This doesn't address the other problem, which is corporate media

giving highly slanted coverage to the Rethugs for tax write-offs and the ability to further consolidate themselves.

[saracat]

8. And how do they plan to control the spouse of an employee?

Or do they think they can do that too? As marital partners are equal partners, I don't see why a reporters husband or wife can't contribute. It would then be less direct but as both are responsible still a contribution!

[Nite Owl]

9. Wasn't the reason for allowing

corporations to give to political parties because it would infringe on their first amendment rights to forbid it? Do corporations now have more constitutional rights than real citizens do?

[SoCalDem]

10. If you are smart, you just have a friend donate ..with a wink-wink-nod-nod

kind of like the whole "blind-trust" thing..

and being "politically pure" has NOTHING to do with cash donations..

an "anchor" can "donate" immeasurably by his/her choice of reported stories and the tone with which they are reported.. they can do more with a word..a look, than some dopey check sent in..

[mtnester]

12. Uhm, this is the USA...how can an employer forbid donations?

And where does this end? What charities can you donate to, who you can marry, what you can eat, read or watch, what magazines or publications can you subscribe, how you worship...etc.etc.

I disagree with this completely, and wonder if it is constitutional. Any constitutional law experts out there?