quote:



[img]http://images.politico.com/global/2015/05/14/150514_george_stephan_gty_629.jpg[/img]

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos has given $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, charitable contributions that he did not publicly disclose while reporting on the Clintons or their non-profit organization, the On Media blog has learned.

In both 2013 and 2014, Stephanopoulos made a $25,000 donation to the 501 nonprofit founded by former president Bill Clinton, the Foundation's records show. Stephanopoulos never disclosed this information to viewers, even when interviewing author Peter Schweizer last month about his book "Clinton Cash," which alleges that donations to the Foundation may have influenced some of Hillary Clinton's actions as Secretary of State.

In a statement to the On Media blog on Thursday, Stephanopoulos apologized and said that he should have disclosed the donations to ABC News and its viewers...

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

My donations are my business and no one else... why should he have needed to disclose anything. As long as he does his job and his employers believe he is doing his job then why does it make any difference?


Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Because, obviously, George Stephanopoulos was wearing a disguise while he worked in the Clinton Administration, at the White House. I'm sure he never expected anyone to recognize him.

You guys act like you just pulled the mask off the bad guy on Scooby Doo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Because, obviously, George Stephanopoulos was wearing a disguise while he worked in the Clinton Administration, at the White House. I'm sure he never expected anyone to recognize him.

You guys act like you just pulled the mask off the bad guy on Scooby Doo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i agree about privacy butch, but in this instance, its a professional ethics situation.

its roughly equivalent of my doing research on the beneficial effects of chocolate and not disclosing I work for Hershey, or that Hershey funded the research, or better yet, that I own stock in Hershey. the potential for bias exists, and so declaring it ahead of time tunes the reader or listener in to watch for it.

and jv, while yes everyone knows he did work in the Clinton administration, no one knew that he donated heavily to the foundation. the latter is relevant when he is interviewing an author who is critical of the foundation.

another way to look at might be a judge having to recuse himself from sitting on a case because he is too close to the defendant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

My donations are my business and no one else... why should he have needed to disclose anything. As long as he does his job and his employers believe he is doing his job then why does it make any difference?


Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i agree about privacy butch, but in this instance, its a professional ethics situation.

its roughly equivalent of my doing research on the beneficial effects of chocolate and not disclosing I work for Hershey, or that Hershey funded the research, or better yet, that I own stock in Hershey. the potential for bias exists, and so declaring it ahead of time tunes the reader or listener in to watch for it.

and jv, while yes everyone knows he did work in the Clinton administration, no one knew that he donated heavily to the foundation. the latter is relevant when he is interviewing an author who is critical of the foundation.

another way to look at might be a judge having to recuse himself from sitting on a case because he is too close to the defendant.

With the attention span of many people, the political astuteness (or lack thereof), the young age of some of the audience... Not everyone does know he is a long time Clinton crony, or is even aware that such information is contextually significant to the interview

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
he is held to a different standard since he's a public figure in situations where his work effects other people (in this case, their knowledge or beliefs about certain things) and its important (some would say essential) for consumers to know about any potential for conflicts of interest or commitment.

Just like the Koch brothers. They do much in the political arena of America. I think they should have to give a full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Would be enlightening to see their money laundering operations to all their dummy organizations, so as to hide which Republican and Tea Partier is the minion of these two individuals. Would undermine those Republicans and Tea Partiers credibility pretty quickly.

Then we can do the same with Wayne La Pierre, Rupert Murdoch and the whole Walton Family! It's pretty safe assumption none of those people want their political contributions being made public.

Wayne La Pierre does not pretend to be a neutral newsman. I have never seen any of the people you mentioned conduct and interview. Remember the rap is that he didn't even let his present employer know about this, again, I doubt that that is relevant to any of the people you mentioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yet the young people whom you dismiss so easily are better at obtaining information faster and more efficiently than those of your generation!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

My donations are my business and no one else... why should he have needed to disclose anything. As long as he does his job and his employers believe he is doing his job then why does it make any difference?


Butch

When a newsman tries to discredit someone who is critical of a foundation don't you think it is relevant that the newsman is a substantial supporter. Particularly when the critic says the foundation provides backdoor funding for his former boss? Imagine if a Halberton shareholder were trying to discredit one of their critics.