(04-18-2018 03:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-18-2018 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-18-2018 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-18-2018 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-18-2018 10:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: Um, it's public record? And any of us born before 1980 probably remember George S. from back then anyway. (At least they don't do fluff pieces on how dreamy he is any more!) He's had a decade or two for people to decide on his level of objectivity.
Hannity was concealing something directly related to stories he was commenting on; there's really no ambiguity that he should have disclosed it from a journalism perspective. I can't believe that's even being debated.
Having said that, is it shocking or "news" that Hannity is not an objective journalist? Nope. But when he was ranting and raving about the raids on Cohen's office, I don't think anyone thought he was the secret "third client"...
So let me get this straight:
an objective reporter with a long history with person A gets a free pass with respect to anything dealing with person A at least in part b/c they are an 'objective' journalist;
a biased commentator, who wears his views on his sleeve and has a medium depth, shortish history with Person B *must* 'disclose' all with respect to person B.
I find it interesting that you give lighter scrutiny to the 'objective reporter' based in part because they are 'objective' as opposed to a clearly biased commentator.
And you neglected to note that short george has more than a passing relationship in the Clinton entourage. He was as deeply embedded in it as you can get for at least a decade; and has not shunned them in the slightest since then.
But, interestingly, George is judged lighter than the other.
I especially find it odd that you use the goal (being an objective reporter) as part of the judgment calculus for ethics issues. Seems like a faulty recursive type of definition in scope.
I agree with OO above that George does an exemplary job in *trying* to shield his biases. But, it is interesting that the view on who should disclose and why is is becoming a very subjective viewpoint (with one of the judgement criteria being whether one is 'objective' -- which I would say is again just another 'subjective' criteria.) (Words, have to love when the decision of whom is an 'objective' reporter is actually very 'subjective' in practice...)
Is it news to the public that George S. worked for the campaign? Was it not disclosed to the public before he reported on Clinton?
Is it news to the public that Hannity was involved with Cohen? Was it not disclosed to the public before he reported on Cohen?
so the rule is now 'say it once and you are in easy peasy street'? which ethics set of rules perchance has this temporal or one-time formulation? or did you make this up?
Care to answer the question?
Your implication is clear here Lad. You tell people once and it is clear. Where did you derive this formulation?
You clearly set this rhetorical question set up as a sole and only differentiator. And they are 'different' no doubt. So answered Lad.
Perhaps it might be your turn to explain the importance of these in the world of journalistic ethics, and point us to any place inthat world that sums up "you talk once, it is Okay'. Anywhere. I mean you are the guy telling everyone here *what* constitutes such egregious conduct on a flatly determinative 'cut and dry' basis, to the point that subjective belief of the subject apparently means nothing at all. So you must be able to point us where this exists as a differentiator with that depth of knowledge.
Further, you are making zero differential between a 'real representation' (which really could lead to those questions) and a 'cocktail representation', except that somewhere, somehow ACP == representation in its fullest, and therefore there is a 'cut and dry' journalistic ethics violation.
Tell me Lad, assume a journalist, half drunk, asks me for broad advice, with the time worn adage 'hey dude remember privilege applies' as he slobbers on the rug. Are you *really* telling me that if that journalist *ever* covers me, then if he doesnt say 'well as a half-assed cocktail conversation I had a representation from the bloviating lawyer' that is a 'cut and dry' ethics violation? Seriously?
Look, if it comes out that Cohen actually authored a legal document, was paid more than a cost of coacktail, or generally did *anything* more than accept the price of a cocktail and talk generalities, I would be in your camp. But there is *no* evidence that points that way. If you know of some, please cite it. And send it to Fox News for action. And with that absolute paucity of additional facts, you are seemingly more than eager to proclaim it a fundamentally determinative case of journalistic ethics violations.
I find the juxtaposition of your reasoned approach to the Mueller Investigation (we dont know anything here, let it proceed, let us talk about facts) in a very strong opposition to what looks like a rush to reach a 'cut and dry' and stunningly obvious ethical violation without the same measure of supporting facts.
And by the way Lad. George was far fing more than just 'worked for the campaign' as your question predicate stands. Since apparently you do not have a clue as to the depth of George's relationship with the Clinton team, maybe the you just self-answered your own question, but in a way that actually detracts from your defense of him.
