George Stephanopoulos discloses $75,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation.

[B2r4a6n 103]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/george-stephanopoulos-discloses-contribution-to-clinton-207120.html

[24994J 5577]

NBC could learn a lesson from this. George made the mistake, cleared the air, and he (or the news division), with pressure for the GOP removed himself from one of next year's debates. Sure, a few rabble rousers will try to keep this afloat, but their swift handling of the issue should soften most reactions.

 

Meanwhile, BriWi is still flailing in the wind.

[rkolsen 1684]

Keep in mind he gave to the Clinton Foundation and not the campaign. The Clinton Foundation has donors such as the News Corp Foundation and Donald Trump.

 

I also find it interesting that this is a controversy all of the sudden but people seemed to forget his ties to Clinton 42's administration. He served as communications director during his first campaign, was a communications director and a senior advisor when Clinton was in the White House. Surely the GOP knew this when they approved the primary debates but didn't care until someone made a revelation about his donations.

 

As a liberal I don't care about this but he honestly should have known this could possibly cause a controversy.

[bhratbrat 437]

FOX News thinks he should be removed from more than just the Republican debate and that he should not cover the election (this came from Megyn Kelly) tonight.

 

My personal opinion is that giving to a foundation that is owned by your former boss necessarily isn't nefarious. But the problems arise for when you do not necessarily know where the money is getting funneled towards her campaign is why there are big red flags in this. Not only that it is a clear conflict of interest. News reporters and anchors should NEVER give money to a political campaign and/or to charities that could be tied in any way to any politician to where it compromises the journalistic integrity of a person. This does not matter how great they are, if you do it you open yourself to a perception problem that you are biased.

 

And to set the record straight I am not a conservative or a liberal, and I don't register as a republican or a democrat.

 

But it seems that the lines of journalism ethics are getting crossed day in and day out and for people that appreciate the business of news, you start to wonder why the business of journalism is going straight down the toilet and this is why. Anchors, reporters, news executives do not even respect the lines of ethics that have been created.

 

I do think in the case of Brian Williams he should be gone. Not necessarily for the act of stretching details of a war time story. He is human after all, as we all are. But because he lost his word when he made the mistake and the perception now of him is that he isn't a trustworthy source at all.

 

In this case of George, its not necessarily the act that he gave to the Clinton Foundation in generally a good way. It's because it creates a clear conflict of interest and therefore has breached the ethics of journalism.

 

All news divisions need to rewrite rules and take a zero tolerance policy that state that reporters/anchors and management of news divisons should not take part in activities that give way to a clear conflict of interest. If its the stations promotions department or community department that is another story. But news departments should be independent and go away from the noise.

 

Maybe I am ranting a bit, but if the big news departments want to be serious about covering news instead of appeasing people and literally breaking all rules of ethics, than strong action(s) must take place to those that make mistakes and then to refocus to make news departments legitment instead of bastardized versions of kissing sponsor's ass(es)

[ns8401 941]

I think this is probably much ado about nothing... there is a clear difference between the foundation and her campaign... any nefarious or funneling type activities after the fact are out of his control. The lack of disclosure is the issue... not that he donated. He's a private citizen and can do what he wants with his money within the rules of ABC News.

[wabceyewitness 818]

It's interesting that News Corp gave to the foundation, too. Perhaps FOX News should also recuse themselves of any involvement in campaign coverage.

[WAVY 10 Fan 233]

 

Keep in mind he gave to the Clinton Foundation and not the campaign. The Clinton Foundation has donors such as the News Corp Foundation and Donald Trump.

 

I also find it interesting that this is a controversy all of the sudden but people seemed to forget his ties to Clinton 42's administration. He served as communications director during his first campaign, was a communications director and a senior advisor when Clinton was in the White House. Surely the GOP knew this when they approved the primary debates but didn't care until someone made a revelation about his donations.

 

As a liberal I don't care about this but he honestly should have known this could possibly cause a controversy.

 

I'm on the more conservative end of the political spectrum; and that was one of the things that always baffled me when it came to choosing moderators.

 

At this point, it looks like nothing more will end up happening barring any strange twists (i.e.: Stephanopoulos having more connections besides financial to the Clinton Foundation/donating more that what's been reported).

[Rusty Muck 4374]

It's interesting that News Corp gave to the foundation, too. Perhaps FOX News should also recuse themselves of any involvement in campaign coverage.

As News Corp. now consists solely of the newspaper division, you could make a case regarding the New York Post... which offered up this editorial-ish column today.

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

As News Corp. now consists solely of the newspaper division, you could make a case regarding the New York Post... which offered up this editorial-ish column today.

 

If anyone knows about being a trustworthy news source, it's the New York Post.

[wabceyewitness 818]

George Stephanopolous is just being used a distracting talking point some elements of the GOP right now. Take a look at the list of ALL media donations to the Clinton Foundation. By the measure being used by Stephanopolous critics, any news division of 21st Century Fox, Comcast, NBCU, Reuters, Bloomberg, Time Warner, PBS, Hearst, Huffington Post, etc. should all stay out of election coverage.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-207228.html

[mountainave 606]

As we know, ABC and George acknowledged that he will continue to cover the election but recuse himself from moderating debates hosted by ABC. ABC is hosting a Democratic debate in December. So, who will ABC choose to moderate? A few possibilities that come to mind...

 

• David Muir (would help promote him and WNT brand, but he lacks political savvy)
   
  
• Martha Raddatz (who was widely acclaimed for doing a strong job moderating ABC's 2012 debate)
  
• Jonathan Karl (would make sense as chief White House correspondent, but he seems inexperienced, whether true or not, compared to David and Martha)
   
  
• A tag-team of Cecilia Vega and Tom Llamas, who have both been covering the campaign
  

[wabceyewitness 818]

Will most likely be a team of Martha Raddatz and Jonathan Karl along with a Univision and/or Fusion journalist.

[BehindNYNews 147]

Will most likely be a team of Martha Raddatz and Jonathan Karl along with a Univision and/or Fusion journalist.

That could work but it doesn't have a big name in there. Martha is developing her name at the network but she doesn't have that big name factors like George, Diane, David or Robin.

 

They need a big name in there so my guess is David and Martha and if they wanted a 3 person panel they could add Jonathan too. But Martha and Jonathan alone just don't have enough of a name factor for ABC. And maybe they'll have a panel on the side of a fusion anchor and maybe Matthew Dowd to ask a question or two.

[wabceyewitness 818]

That could work but it doesn't have a big name in there. Martha is developing her name at the network but she doesn't have that big name factors like George, Diane, David or Robin.

 

They need a big name in there so my guess is David and Martha and if they wanted a 3 person panel they could add Jonathan too. But Martha and Jonathan alone just don't have enough of a name factor for ABC. And maybe they'll have a panel on the side of a fusion anchor and maybe Matthew Dowd to ask a question or two.

 

 

Martha Raddatz is the chief global affairs correspondent and the primary fill in for This Week. She's been with ABC for 16 years. By no means is she still developing her name at the network. That said, she was tapped to moderate the general election's vice presidential debate in 2012 and received rave reviews. I'm sure she can handle a democratic primary debate.

[BehindNYNews 147]

Martha Raddatz is the chief global affairs correspondent and the primary fill in for This Week. She's been with ABC for 16 years. By no means is she still developing her name at the network. That said, she was tapped to moderate the general election's vice presidential debate in 2012 and received rave reviews. I'm sure she can handle a democratic primary debate.

She definitely has the credentials, she just doesn't have the star power of David or anyone else I named. And we all know ABC likes stars...

[TVNewsLover 779]

We now have our answer as to who will moderate the ABC debates: http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/david-muir-and-martha-raddatz-will-moderate-abcs-primary-debates/278307