This!

From the Washington Free Beacon:

A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family’s vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.

It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.

The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is a charity affiliated with the newspaper that assists underprivileged New Yorkers. It is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives. The Times’ editorial board endorsed Clinton against Democratic challengers John Edwards and Barack Obama on January 25, 2008, writing that she was “more qualified, right now, to be president.”

Hmmmm…

From the Times standards of ethics and integrity, as well as its ethics standards for employees and staff:

• Reporters, editors, photographers and all members of the news staff of The New York Times share a common and essential interest in protecting the integrity of the newspaper. As the news, editorial and business leadership of the newspaper declared jointly in 1998: “Our greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times. We must do nothing that would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it.”

• For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.

• At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure* that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

• Staff members may not accept gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other inducements from any individuals or organizations covered by The Times or likely to be covered by The Times. (Exceptions may be made for trinkets of nominal value, say, $25 or less, such as a mug or a cap with a company logo.) Gifts should be returned with a polite explanation.

• Staff members may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or as an inducement to alter or forgo unfavorable coverage.

• Even though this topic defies hard and fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias.

Gee, is there a whiff of bias in that undisclosed gift from the Clintons? Does the Times accepting a $100,000 gift to one of the Times’ projects from  Hillary Clinton’s personal foundation, in the midst of a presidential campaign, and not disclosing it to the public prior to or after endorsing Ms. Clinton for President breach any of these ethical principles?

It breaches all of them.

Every single one.

Yet here was Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy’s  response to the Free Beacon report:

“NO donation to The Neediest Cases Fund has ever had any impact on a Times endorsement. We’re not commenting further.”

Well, so you say. But the New York Times clearly states, repeatedly, in its various ethics standards, that it is the appearance of bias, influence and lack of credibility that guides the Times in all situations. That requires transparency. The Times didn’t let anyone know about this gift, which violates the spirit, if not the letter, of its policies.  Its response now is to say, “Well, whether it looks like quid pro quo or not, we didn’t give the endorsement in exchange for the gift, and you have to take our word for it.”

Why should we take the Times’ word for it? What other pay-offs might it be hiding? What was the Marco Rubio hit job worth?

And what is the point of publishing all those noble words about integrity and ethics, if the paper is going to ignore them?

* Yes, I know it should be “ensure” or even “assure” but definitely not “insure.” The  Times ethics and integrity standards don’t follow the Times editing standards.

__________________________________

Sources: Washington Free Beacon, Politico