The final categories in the Worst of Ethics 2010. Coming up: The Best of Ethics, 2010.
(If you missed Part 1 of the Worst, go here.)
Worst Ethics Presentation: “Ethics in Politics: An evening with Former Governor Rod Blagojevich” (Presented to its students by Northwestern University) Continue reading
“Chris Christie is moon over New Jersey, he should not wear white shirts, I tell you that. I saw him the other day and I was amazed by it, he must be 300 plus, and that’s something he’s just gotta deal with because you’re not going to say, ‘I’m going to cut the budget,’ well, how about starting with supper?”
That was Chris Matthews during an appearance in Washington, D.C., mocking New Jersey Governor Chris Cristie, not for his positions, not for his performance in his job, but because of his looks, specifically his weight. Later in the same session, Matthews criticized Mississippi Governor Hailey Barbour for his waist size. It isn’t only Matthews; media liberals have been using Rush Limbaugh’s weight as a punchline for years. Ted Kennedy, Gerald Nadler, Madeleine Albright and Charlie Rangel, however, were immune: being fat is only a justification for insults if one is conservative and fat. Continue reading
Yesterday, as she fumed at President Obama’s compromise with Republican to preserve most of the Bush tax cuts for two more years, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow did something she has scrupulously avoided doing in the past: she actually called the President on an outright lie. Mocking Obama’s claim that he got major concessions from Republicans, Maddow read a series of reports proving that the “Child Tax Credit,” which Obama had said was something he had to bargain to get included in the package against GOP opposition, was in fact something the Republican leadership always supported. Good for her…except…. Continue reading
In January, Ethics Alarms named the North Carolina State Personnel Commission an Ethics Dunce for reinstating North Carolina State Trooper Sgt. Charles Jones, who had been fired for abusing one of his police dogs. He had been videoed as he hung the dog, Ricoh, and kicked him for not releasing a chew toy on command. The Commission heard testimony from officers regarding the brutal training methods routinely used by the police, and ruled that by practice and law, what Jones did was not what they call “abuse” in North Carolina, at least when it is done to police dogs. “Though disturbing, the treatment of Jones’ animal does not rise to the level of ‘abuse,'” the ruling reads, and even if it did, the Commission noted that the Wake County, N.C., animal ordinance specifically exempts police dogs.” In other words, abusing police dogs is acceptable conduct for K-9 trainers.
The ruling came after the testimony of other dog handlers had prompted the Highway Patrol to suspend all use of dogs, anticipating public outrage. Governor Easley also pushed for Jones’s dismissal after the video surfaced, and he made certain that the Commission’s reinstatement of Jones was appealed.
You’re not going to like the result. Continue reading
Every so often there is a news story that exposes the serious deficiencies in the ethics comprehension in the public and the media. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was one such story; Major League Baseball’s steroid controversy was another. I confess: I didn’t see the Keith Olbermann suspension for making political donations as having the potential to be another test of ethical competence, but it is. And almost everyone is flunking it.
The facts of the Olbermann incident are deceptively simple. The rant-prone, self-annointed champion of the Angry Left violated an NBC ethics policy that forbade its reporters and commentators from making political contributions, on the theory, absurd when applied to Olbermann, that it compromises their reputation for objectivity. Olbermann has no objectivity, or reputation for it either. Nonetheless, he intentionally and flagrantly violated his employer’s policy. That alone justifies his suspension, whether or not the policy is idiotic. And it is.
But Olbermann’s fans and critics alike are all over the internet attaching rationalizations and flawed ethical reasoning to the episode. Such as: Continue reading
I’ll make this short, but I can’t pass up the chance to come to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann’s defense when he deserves one. It may never happen again.
Politico is reporting that Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and losing Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway beforeTuesday’s election , which is a violation of NBC ethics policies.
Olbermann made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show the same day that Olbermann made the gift. NBC, like most news organizations, has a policy against employees contributing to political campaigns on the theory that it indicates a breach of journalistic independence and a lack of objectivity.
Yes, Keith broke the rules of his employer. That is wrong, no matter what the rule is, and justifies whatever punishment NBC deems appropriate.
The rule, however, is itself unethical, because its objective is to deceive the public into believing that reporters who are anything but objective, are. It isn’t a contribution that makes a reporter partisan and biased, it is wanting to make the contribution that shows his bias, whether he makes it or not. The rule prohibits reporters acting in a way that alerts the public to what their biases are. But I want to know what they are. Don’t you? Continue reading
“Yes, this has happened to a smaller degree before. In 1994, in the first mid-term election after the last Democratic president was elected, we got a slate of candidates that included Helen Chenoweth of Idaho and Steve Stockman of Texas. These two were so close to the militia movement in this country that Mr. Stockman actually received advance notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen.”
—-Rachel Maddow, rising MSNBC star, attacking the current slate of anti-big government Republicans and Tea Party stalwarts.
As I have mentioned here before, when the going gets tough, the tough get unethical. As the certainty of a Red Tide washing over Congress, the Senate and the state houses becomes more inevitable with each passing day, frustrated partisans in the blogosphere and news media are lashing out in frustration, allowing their commentary to become even more shrill and their respect for essentials like facts and fairness to shrink to the vanishing point.
Maddow is an especially depressing case in point. She is a talented television personality and a sharp analyst, but her passionate progressive leanings sometimes overwhelm her professionalism, and this time, she crashed over all ethical lines. Continue reading
The upcoming election, among other horrible things, will stand as a landmark of ethical corruption, as parties, news sources and voters will have thoroughly abandoned integrity and weakened their core values by excusing damning behavior from their favored candidates, behavior that, if honestly and objectively evaluated, should disqualify them from any office of trust.
We have already seen disturbing examples of this phenomenon in such embarrassing displays as Rep. Charles Rangel’s birthday celebration, as major Democrats lined up to give tribute to a Congressman who has abandoned multiple ethical duties, including an absolute disgrace for any Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, willful tax evasion. Rather than take a stand for honest government and representatives the public can believe in, partisan supporters are blaming Rangel’s self-made problems on Republican attacks, as if they made Charlie do it all at gunpoint.
The same theme is being echoed by conservatives on talk radio, who are making the case that the ridiculous Christine O’Donnell, who has undeniably misused campaign funds and misrepresented her educational background numerous times and ways, is being criticized for these “errors” because of a “media double-standard.” The only way to interpret such a defense is that the people making it believe all lies, misuse of donations and efforts to mislead the public are excusable if the press has ever ignored them when the transgressor was from the other party. Or they really don’t believe that, but are saying that they do. Either way, they are corrupt. Continue reading
As bad as it is for an elected official like Rep. Alan Grayson to say publicly that “Republicans want you to die,” at least his status as a politician (and Grayson’s record as a politician lacking rudimentary respect, fairness, and honesty) alerts most listeners that his statements cannot to be trusted. Such statements are more harmful and less tolerable when they come from media commentators, however, even shameless partisan blow-hards like Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann began his coverage of the fire department in Tennessee that allowed a man’s home to burn down by calling it “a preview of an America as envisioned by the Tea Party…just a preview of what would come in a kind of a la carte government.” Continue reading
It took multilateral stupidity and hypocrisy to do it, but at least the issue is out in the open. The issue is whether media companies who cover politics under the guise of being objective should be giving large campaign checks to the political parties, especially when they give more to one party than another. Does the arm’s length relationship essential to objective reporting survive six and seven-figure donations? At very least, should media companies be required to make their political contribution choices very public?
This issue was raised in the wake of the parent corporation of Fox News, News Corporation, foolishly giving a whopping $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. This over-shadowed any amount the company has contributed though its political action committee to Democratic groups or causes, so the Democratic National Committee pounced, saying snidely:
“‘Fair and Balanced’ has been rendered utterly meaningless. Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away. No Republican who appears on Fox can be seen as answering to an independent press and all should appear with a disclaimer for who they truly are – the favored candidate of the corporate-friendly network. No Fox News political coverage can be seen as impartial and all of it should have a disclaimer for what it truly is – partisan propaganda.” Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 