Carville and Disclosure

James Carville is under attack for criticizing Barack Obama on CNN without disclosing the fact he has helped raise money for Hillary Clinton and advises her.  This is a serious ethical lapse.  Whether or not he gets paid is irrelevant.  I disclose people who I advise when I write about them regardless of whether I got/get paid or not.  The financial aspect is irrelevant to ethics.  I also keep that information on my "About" page as a permanent source.

CNN erred, once again, in taking the initiative and disclosing this very relevant fact when Carville dissed Obama.  The ultimate responsibility for ethics is with the network and they descended into Faux News Channel depths with this omission.

Comments

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

CNN has fallen to Faux Noise depths ever since Ted Turner sold it to Time Warner.

[Lee Levan]

The drive for profits (ratings) has blinded a great deal of, especially the electronic, media to the ethical principles which, believe it or not, still are taught in journalism classes. The same drive has significantly blurred the line between news and entertainment.

[t.g.]

We have a local blogger who clearly announced his support for his District candidate. Turns out, she paid him to help set up a website...

[John Morgan]

Ethics require the blogger to disclose that relationship. Blogs are modern day opinion columns so if you have a clear conflict you must reveal that to your readers. Obviously accepting payment from a candidate or campaign influences how you write about them. The readers have the right to know of your relationships so they can take that into account when reading your opinions.

You risk losing credibility otherwise.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

When did Time Warner get in bed with the neo-cons? Have they always been and I just didn't know it?

[John Morgan]

Just look at all the talking heads on CNN, they're almost all conservatives. I wouldn't call them neocons but they're definitely conservative.