With all the hullaballoo going on nowadays about what “opinion journalists” (whatever that means) should or should not do, it’s well to reflect on the behavior of some of our local opinionistas. Dan Kennedy has done yeoman’s work keeping up with Howie Carr’s activities. Howie, of course, writes a regular column for the Herald, and also hosts a talk show on WRKO. He is also a regular at Republican fundraising events, as one can readily observe by heading over to, say, the Cape Cod Republican Club’s Facebook page.
Anyway, some, including Dan, see donating to political candidates as the clearest of lines that should not be crossed:
There are certain ethical rules that journalists – even rabidly opinionated columnists – try to follow. You don’t donate money to candidates. You don’t put signs on your lawn. You don’t put bumper stickers on your car.
This is obviously a hot topic in light of Olbermann-gate.
So, as Adam Gaffin at UHub has already noticed, Howie Carr has crossed that line too. Not often, apparently, and not for a lot of money. But a line is a line. (Click for larger, non-squished image.)
Who? Yeah, Royall Switzler ran a quixotic and unsuccessful campaign against Alice Peisch to represent Carr’s leafy (though apparently drunken-teen-infested) hometown of Wellesley in the state legislature.
Also, interestingly, Howie Carr used his Herald column to boost Switzler’s candidacy, thoughtfully including him in the list of legislative contenders he thought merited particular attention. In that column, Howie made “full disclosure” regarding a different candidate – something about free food from the Kowloon restaurant. But he said nothing of having donated to Switzler’s campaign a few weeks earlier.
If someone could explain to me how this is different from what Keith Olbermann did, I’m all ears.
Finally, for the record, I actually don’t agree with Dan that donating to political candidates is an especially important line that should under no circumstances be crossed. The free media that Howie and his ilk provide to candidates they like is far, far more valuable than the few bucks they are allowed to toss into candidates’ campaign coffers. Does the fact that Howie Carr donated $100 to Royall Switzler before shilling for him in his Herald column, or that Olbermann donated to candidates who he had on his show, particularly matter? I don’t really see how, and I think saying it does elevates form over substance. But for the formalists out there, make of this what you will.
steve-stein says
Olbermann works for MSNBC, a news operation.
Howie works for the Herald.
<
p>Clear now?
dont-get-cute says
It is now well understood by the public that Olbermann and Maddow are over-the-top partisans. They are both sort of like Jon Stewart, but more partisan and less funny. So MSNBC and Olbermann no doubt thought it was a good idea to both a) acknowledge that he’s a Democrat, and b) that it is OK for him to be a Democrat and even a donor, and c) establish that MSNBC is not a comedy network and has rules. I don’t think c) will be successful, though apparently b) is working, as we are now learning that it is OK to give contributions and still be a news anchor.
somervilletom says
I agree that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are partisan commentators.
<
p>So what? And how shall we measure “over-the-top”?
<
p>”Commentary” is, well, commentary. If you don’t want partisan commentary, don’t watch Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow. You will, of course, also scrupulously avoid Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, right?
<
p>How much air-time of the regular weekday primetime schedule of Fox News would you describe as non-partisan news programming? I agree that both Fox News and MSNBC offer partisan commentary. Where does “Bill Moyer’s Journal”, over on PBS, fit in your partisan/non-partisan spectrum?
<
p>Some commentary is based in truth, and relies on truth to skewer its targets. The genuine distinction between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow, and between Fox News and MSNBC is the distinction between a reliance on lies and on truth.
<
p>Some of us see the distinction. All too many Americans do not.
peter-porcupine says
For instance, I like Kudlow.
<
p>My understanding from reading Dan’s blogs on the matter is that MSNBC also uses Olberman for straight reporting like election coverge. Fox uses Shepher Smith or Megan Kelley for similar purposes.
<
p>I’ve noticed lately that they, like Bret Bair, call themselves the REPORTERS at Fox News, perhaps to differentiate between tham and commentators like Krauthammer and O’Reilly.
steve-stein says
ryepower12 says
Coming from your right-wing position, your statement is shocking.
<
p>Fox News has no policy banning its hosts or contributors from donating, and in fact there are those at Fox who not only contribute tens of thousands of dollars a cycle, but fundraise literally millions and millions of dollars on their behalf (Hannity) or host huge rallies for the Republican cause (Beck).
<
p>Get over yourself.
zadig says
Adding to what Steve said, it all depends on whether Carr, outside of being a know-nothing, intellectually-dishonest hack, was breaking the rules of either WRKO or the Herald when he supported the candidates.
<
p>Olbermann was suspended, at least officially, because he violated a rule to get permission first. At Fox, he wouldn’t have been nailed, since no permission is needed.
<
p>I don’t know what the rules are for Carr, outside of making stuff up and egging on the worst in our society. But that would answer your question.
nickp says
The Dan Kennedy, MSNBC, Fox,… rule that ‘journalists shouldn’t give money’ makes no sense at all.
<
p>Consider that it takes 5 seconds of reading a Kennedy column, or a Carr column or same amount of time listening to Oberman (if you can actually listen that long) and you know whose side each is on.
<
p>But yet, these “journalists” shouldn’t give money?
<
p>News for these journalists: time is money. What if Carr, Kennedy, Obermann had donated weeks of their time stuffing envelopes or delivering posters. No problem. What if same had given money to hire someone to stuff envelopes or deliver money. Ohmygod, end of journalism as we know it.
<
p>What would the Parties rather have, $100 of Carr’s money, or six inches of his printed antagonism against the democrat opponent. I’m guessing the latter.
<
p>The only reprimand to Carr and Obermann is for their stupidity first, in not recognizing that their published words are more valuable than their measley contributions and second, not checking with their employment contract first.
steve-stein says
It’s about independence, not objectivity.
david says
I find this whole obsession with political donations totally unconvincing. OK, so Olbermann donated to a candidate. So what? How is he no longer “independent” from that person, in any meaningful way, than he was before he gave the money? If the candidate had given money to Olbermann, or agreed to buy ads on his show, or something like that, then I could see it. But for Olbermann to voluntarily give money to a candidate he obviously supports anyway, so what?
ryepower12 says
Let them donate to candidates. It gets whatever biases they have out in the air. They can’t pretend to be “objective” or “unbiased.” And there’s nothing with more transparency than political donations to candidates (the Chamber of Commerce is another story).
steve-stein says
Kennedy’s done a lot of articles about this, and it’s worthwhile to read them all. There’s a lot of angles to this, so many that I can’t conceive of all of them. So I’ll trust to the professionals until I learn them all.
ryepower12 says
They’re allowed to give to their heart’s content.
scout says
Howie skates on this stuff, in part, because nobody really expects any different. IMHO, being an obvious and unapologetic repub homer is the least of things to fault him for. Being outrageous homophobic, nakedly misogynistic and completely delusional (he seems to actually think ponytailed trust-fund hippie are everywhere and controlling MA politics) are closer to the top of a long list.
<
p>That’s not even getting into the hypocrisy…just this week he was gaily chatting with callers about how he was going to be out on Friday in order to get liposuction surgery done on his gut. It is all too easy to imagine the endless stream of cackling derision Howie would launch on someone he didn’t like (say…Jane Swift or Tom Menino), if they dared to even hint that they considered doing such a thing.
<
p>This is a person whose earnest complaint about corporal punishment is that he is haunted at night by the pain caused (to his own hand, of course) when he accidentally smacks the rivets on his kid’s jeans:
<
p>
<
p>If you listen to his show for any length of time, it’s clear that Howie is an individual in a very dark place. He seems to get almost no pleasure out of life of any kind…save for the fleeting highs of fatty foods and seeing people he doesn’t like fail in some way or another. As much as his right-leaning radio compatriots like Michael Graham and Jay Severin can be quite loathsome & annoying, they do at least seem like people who get some joy out of life in general. Howie is simply miserable.
david says
I’d love to meet one of those sometime. I keep hearing about them, but I’ve never seen one.
tblade says
“If you donate to my campaign, I will always grant first interviews to your show and always save my breaking news announcements for your show.”
<
p>That’s one reason for TV opinion journalists to not donate.
david says
more precisely, that’s a reason for TV opinion journalists not to enter into quid pro quo arrangements.
<
p>How about: “if you trash my opponent on your show and are nice to me, I will always grant first interviews to your show and always save my breaking news announcements for your show.”
<
p>Would that be OK? Again, wouldn’t that be far more valuable than 2,400 lousy bucks?
tblade says
I can’t imagine a realistic reason where Olbermann’s $2,400 would make a Senator or US Rep more likely to favor Countdown than other media.
<
p>I would suggest that it would be a sound personal philosophy for an Olbermann-type to not donate to lawmakers and candidates upon whom the journalist/commentator rely for content and ratings. It keeps the so-called line crisper and and keeps the zone from becoming grayer.
<
p>And really, it’s only $2,400. Nothing to sneeze at for a candidate/incumbent, but not so much money that Mr. Olbermann’s contribution will but the candidate over the top and not so much that it can’t be gained elsewhere.
<
p>Why even open yourself up to the question of the quid pro quo when it is so easy to avoid?
david says
I absolutely agree that it’s best to avoid making donations – they are basically trivial, and as we’ve seen, they open up a can of worms that is best kept closed. What I don’t get is why anyone really gives a damn in the first place. These things are public record. Let all journalists – beat reporters as well as opinionistas – donate to whoever they want. It’s all public, and then the voters can decide for themselves whose reporting they trust.
<
p>But that’s not the world we’re in. People do give a damn, so in practice it’s certainly best to avoid the problem by not donating.
peter-porcupine says
eaboclipper says
Olbermann signed as a condition of his employment a contract that stipulated he would not donate to candidates.
<
p>If Entercomm or the Herald did not have that rider for Howie Carr then this is apples to oranges.
<
p>Back in February I had a question about David Bernstein and Joan Vennochi headlining a PAC fundraiser for the Women’s Campaign Forum. I wrote both of them and I contacted Jane E. Kirtley, Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota. Professor Kirtley told me that in many instances media organizations make a distinction between their opinion columnists of which Bernstein and Venocchi are and straight news. I did not pursue the story for that reason.
<
p>Dan Kennedy then made his big stink about Howie and I brought the Women’s Campaign Forum up at that time. Kennedy’s line of reasoning was that they are completely different, giving to a candidate or giving to a PAC. I contend they are not different as the money from a PAC often ends up with a candidate anyways. Having talked to Professor Kirtley regarding this I see no issue in any of these cases.
<
p>Olbermann is different it is a case between him and his employer and is a matter of contract law. He signed the contract that prohibited him from doing this in return for a significant monetary payment, his salary. This is between MSNBC and Olbermann.
ryepower12 says
<
p>That’s false. There was no such thing in his contract. The company itself has a policy, but that policy itself was not in Olbermann’s contract. Additionally, it’s not even clear that the policy itself even applied to opinionated commentators. MSNBC just happens to have an asshat as head of the organization who looooooooooooves Joe Scarborough and dislikes the progressives, but thankfully doesn’t have the power to nudge Olbermann out of his seat, thanks to the audience.
<
p>But thanks for wasting everyone’s time with your lies and/or deception. I’m glad to see you haven’t changed one iota. Thank goodness we don’t have rational republicans who are interested in honest and frank discussions leading the state GOP, otherwise Democrats may be in trouble. Have fun with the Cookie Monster lady brand of politics… I’m suuuuure it’ll get ya far…..
peter-porcupine says
david says
Olbermann’s contract said that he was supposed to clear donations with NBC’s president first. It’s actually not at all clear that he was required to do so:
<
p>
<
p>If this had ended up in court, Olbermann would have had a good claim, since “should” and “must” are not interchangeable.
<
p>I don’t know that Carr has a similar contract issue. But I don’t know that he doesn’t, either.
<
p>In any event, though, the contractual details aren’t very interesting. The more interesting question is the question of “journalistic ethics,” and whether people employed by outfits like the Herald should be making donations to candidates, especially if they then use their Herald-sponsored soapbox to boost those candidates, as Carr did. What do you think about that?
david says
I believe that Ryan is right – the language is an NBC policy, not contractual language. It’s still probably a condition of his employment.
dkennedy says
… may have believed the policy didn’t apply to him because it specifically refers to “his or her standing as an impartial journalist.” That’s why the principle is more important than the poorly written policy.
dkennedy says
Let me point to four examples of why someone working even as an opinionated commentator shouldn’t become involved in politics.
<
p>1. In his semi-apology on Tuesday night, Olbermann said if he had thought through the apperance problem created by one of his donations a little more clearly, he would have changed a “Worst Person” segment.
<
p>2. Olbermann also said it was OK to interview a candidate because he didn’t give him any money until after the interview. Which means he was conceding it would not have been all right to give him money, then interview him.
<
p>3. Carr still writes reported columns in which he calls up Democratic pols, asks for a comment and then snickers in print when they refuse to call him back. Even a journalist working the opinion side of the street can expect an ideological adversary to agree to an interview. But there’s no way anyone should expect a Democrat to give on-the-record quotes to someone who is a known Republican activist.
<
p>4. The reason Rachel Maddow’s Friday commentary was so effective was because the contrast between MSNBC and Fox News was so stark. You couldn’t help but laugh at the lack of credibility created by the political involvement of Fox hosts like Sean Hannity. If MSNBC hosts were suddenly freed to dive into politics the way Fox News hosts do, well, then the falsehood that they’re mirror images of each other suddenly becomes true, doesn’t it? Here’s Maddow:
<
p>http://www.dankennedy.net/2010…
<
p>Those of you who point out that the air time an Olbermann or a Carr can give to favored politicians is more valuable than a few piddling campaign contributions are quite right. But they interview people for a living. That doesn’t compromise their independence in any way.
<
p>Speaking at party rallies, putting signs on your lawn and making campaign donations is another matter altogether.
christopher says
…the implication that journalists should check their citizenship at the door. I’d have a problem with journalists headlining fundraisers or raising money for candidates, especially on air as Fox does, but giving an individual contribution from one’s own funds subject to the legal limits of such contributions doesn’t bother me. It would probably be a good idea to disclose such contributions to an interviewee on air at the time of the interview, however.
dont-get-cute says
If MSNBC hosts were suddenly freed to dive into politics the way Fox News hosts do, well, then the falsehood that they’re mirror images of each other suddenly becomes true, doesn’t it?
<
p>But even if MSNBC didn’t let their hosts dive into politics, that wouldn’t mean their hosts weren’t equally mirror-imaged biased. It would just mean they wanted to be able to claim that Fox was biased but they were not, which would be false. So, no, it wouldn’t “suddenly become true” that they were mirror images of each other, it is true regardless.
<
p>And being allowed to contribute might actually reduce bias in news coverage, because the hosts would be able to express their personal preference by making a contribution of their own money, and they wouldn’t feel muzzled. They could then perform their jobs as unbiased reporters. But if they were forbidden from supporting a candidate personally, they might feel a need to use their platform to express their preference instead.
hrs-kevin says
We are talking about giving a little money here, not spending hours volunteering for a candidate or hosting fundraisers. Unless the amount of money is large, I see no difference between actually writing the check and wanting to do it but holding back. I don’t think that giving a political contribution in any way makes one a political “activist” as you suggest.
<
p>The main reason for banning contributions outright is that it is easy to enforce.
<
p>