Taking a page from the Bush Administration, Emanuel Cleaver, former Kansas City Mayor and current US Representative, has been caught in a scandal of sorts. “Of sorts” it seems, because there are many who have been purposely ignoring it.
While running for election last fall, Cleaver hired Eric Wesson, a reporter and columnist for The Call, a local newspaper for the KC area. He was paid $1,500 during the election and $1,000 afterwards for speeches and telephone bank scripts he wrote.
Meanwhile The Call has supported Cleaver in its run and Wesson has written articles in support of the Representative, never once disclosing to his readers the $2,500 he was paid.
The Kansas City Star, our main newspaper, seems to have known of this story for months. You know the first time it was mentioned? Mid February, a day after the Washington Post broke it. The editors made a choice not to run a newsworthy piece during a contested election for fear of alienating a certain segment of their readership. The Star also supported Cleaver.
First Armstrong Williams, then Maggie Gallagher, are discovered to be paid mouthpieces for Bush policy, and now this. How many politicians will look at these examples and determine it’s ok to basically pay journalists to support your cause? How many journalists will no longer be able to tell the difference between an unbiased reporting and a paid commercial? Where will it end?
My first thought on reading this was “What’s Cleaver’s party?”
My second thought was, “Why do I care?”
My third thought was, “Because I want this to be a Republican scandal, not a bipartisan one.”
My fourth thought was, “Okay, that’s stupid. Shut up, brain.”
So I confess and swear reform…if this turns out to be a bipartisan scandal, I’ll be as vociferous and vicious against the Dems who do it as I am against the Republicans.
My fifth thought, by the way, was comparing all of these pols and their bought-and-paid-for reporters to Brave Sir Robin and his hired bards…if only the reporters actually reported the truth about their patrons like the bards did Sir Robin…
I’m beginning to wonder if there ought to be a self-regulatory entity for journalists? You know, like the Bar Association or AMA. That might help put an end to this crap.
Seriously, this is bad form no matter what party you are. It’s bad form for the politician and bad form for the “reporter”. The news industry has changed an incredible amount (and not for the better) in the last 30 years (hell, in the last four years, for that matter). Everything they touch anymore seems to turn to verdigrised brass. What worries me is that for a democracy (or democratic republic) to work, we need a news source that at the very least TRIES to present the truth. The problem there is that it seems like every large-scale news source we have has its collective head up Bush’s rectum and LIKES it up there.
That’s what’s really funny about the reporter-for-sale scandal…this Administration is paying for something it doesn’t even need to pay for.
I think every media outlet should adopt a zero telerance policy on this practice before it gets any deeper. Any employee who accepts money or other considerations from the subject of a story and doesn’t fully and prominently disclose the acceptance of those gifts in the resulting story should be fired for accepting bribes.
That might work…if the media cared about integrity anymore. Integrity has been replaced on the altar of the publisher by profit. This began in television, when the networks folded their previously independent new divisions into their entertainment divisions. The newspapers, by the principle of “race to the bottom” followed suit. Only a few of the non-chain papers have any reputation for integrity and hard-hitting investigative reporting anymore. The ones that were swallowed up by Gannett and the other big umbrellas are useless in that respect anymore. And the less said about radio news and ClearChannel the better.
I agree that many media sources have lost the idea of staying within the spirt of integrity but most still try to stay within the letter of it. So making a clear written policy like I posted would have an effect. People that can’t be trusted to follow a general principle may be deterred by a hard and fast rule.
I don’t think this is so much bad for Cleaver as it is bad for the paper and the reporter.
Cleaver hired a writer to write stuff. Now if they had a secret deal that the reporter would write op-ed pieces in favor of Cleaver, that would be bad all around. The reporter should have told his boss of the possible conflict of interest and the reporter and the paper should have informed their readers.
Really though Cleaver should not have even considered the guy for the job.
Shit. Back when I was a reporter I wouldn’t even accept a free meal when covering an event. Hell, I turned down an offer to be a judge in a Chili Cook-off I was writing about. That was the strident nature of the ethics I was taught in J-School at Texas A&M. What the hell are they teaching elsewhere?
Profit. Make money. Bring in the ratings. Increase market share. Suck up to the government so you’re not refused entry to press conferences. And don’t ask uncomfortable questions…no one wants to know about bad news.
[Cartman voice]An interview with the Vice-President, hmm… Jimmy, I don’t know if we can fit that in between ‘Cheerleader Pie-Eating’ and ‘Who’s Got Skidmarks Monday’[/CV]