From "Thomas Friedman’s columns prompt a different kind of ethical question for the New York Times" (WaPo). Friedman has written favorably about Conservation International in many of his columns in the NYT, and his family foundation has donated $5.9 million to it over the years.
Is this a problem, and what is the agenda of the people who are pushing the notion that this is problem? WaPo cites a "San Francisco community organizer named Michael Petrelis" who brought up this issue about Friedman at a NYT shareholder meeting:
His concern, as he described it to The Washington Post: Would readers have a better understanding of Friedman’s published views on, say, Israeli-Palestinian issues, abortion or climate change, if they knew that he was contributing millions of dollars to organizations that favor a particular side? And is Friedman reflecting only the views of those he supports financially, to the exclusion of others?...
“If Tucker Carlson had a charity and was giving money to the Proud Boys” — the far-right group with a history of violent acts — “I’d want to know that, and his viewers would want to know that. I don’t necessarily object to [Friedman’s] causes, but it’s just a simple matter of disclosing.”...
WaPo also cites journalism professor Edward Wasserman:
Any substantial exchange of money involving a journalist has the power to corrupt, he said, or at least create the appearance of it. “The real solution,” Wasserman said, “is to avoid writing about the organization or the issues it’s prominently engaged in.”
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
How the fuck does a NYT columnist make enough cash to donate nearly $6M to anything?
Books, I get it. But does anybody read such egghead, lefty drivel?
If so, God bless him...
I don't know what annoys me more: That the WaPo thinks we'll buy this "we never thought of it this way before" framing of the issue of journalistic recusal, or that they really haven't ever thought of it this way before.
Doesn't everyone know by now that Tom Friedman is a fucking liberal fraud?
And how did he get so rich?
But what I really want to know is if he is buying partnership interests in wind and solar developments and getting a 26% federal income tax return in year one. I think his tax returns should be made public.
So Thomas Friedman is so wealthy that his family Foundation (How many people have a family foundation?) gives away $5.9 million. So how did his family make so much $$? Perhaps Mr Friedman is championing economic policies that benefit his foundation. And not disclosing that. Just like Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein are constantly pushing polices and laws that mysteriously end up making them wealthy.
But gosh that's unpossible!
Anyway, do NYT reading Libtards really care about corruption? No. Do they REALLY care about sexual harrassment? No. They only care when it hurts those Goddamn Republican. But their "leaders" can basically do anything.
Of course Israel immediately emerges as an issue.
Journalists should post every organization they contribute to, and do it proudly! If you aren't proud of it, if you're afraid of people knowing, then you aren't worth taking seriously.
I thought this was going to be about Friedman supporting a company he has invested in without disclosing his investment. That would be a problem because reader support for the company makes him richer. But this seems like mindless application of an over-broad rule. If Friedman supports a cause in his writing, is his written support less sincere if he also puts his money where his mouth is? I can’t even imagine a scenario where this would be unethical.
“If Tucker Carlson had a charity and was giving money to the Proud Boys” — the far-right group with a history of violent acts — “I’d want to know that,
I think we've found the real objective of the WAPO's piece.
Okay, now do the Democrat Party.
This seems qualitatively different from money received. In that circumstance, it's legitimate to wonder whether some outside source's money is skewing ones coverage of certain issues (consider, for instance, the large advertising inserts that China used to buy in the Washington Post). Giving, though, is presumably just a reflection of the writer's own moral and political views, and presumably those views already inform his work. He's not going to stop having those views just because he's prohibited from donating to others who support them. Think of it this way: if the NYT barred its reporters from voting, would that stop them from being Democrats?
To my mind the answer to the question of giving is yes. The gifting represents viewpoints of the donor and an honest opinion writer should disclose that fact to the reader.
Promoting globalism is how his family foundation came to have $5.9 million dollars to give to this charity. In January 2006, I was given a copy of his 2005 book, “The World is Flat” and told to read it. That book, for better or worse, convinced a lot more U. S. businesses to outsource oversees and arguably caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Despite that, globalism and outsourcing have so far been a big net win for the U.S. economy.
As of a year ago, the family foundation had $11.5 million in assets and gave away $1.9 million in 2020. With that much money to give away, it would be surprising if the family foundation had not been giving money to charities touted in his columns.
ChiCom apologist Thomas Friedman has $5.9 million to toss around??
>Joe Smith said...
How the fuck does a NYT columnist make enough cash to donate nearly $6M to anything?<
Friedman married a billionaire.
so this is WaPo against NYT ? has meme been made yet?
carry on
I thought everyone was aware that Friedman married a billionairess and lives in a 12,000 square foot mansion.
All media promotes one political party, or the other. Instapundit points out that thinking of mainstream media personnel as unpaid operatives for the Democrats explains almost all news narratives. Democrats think Fox News does the same for Republicans.
So how much is it worth, what is the monetary donation value, to write a story about Russian collusion in 2016, or better yet, not to write a story about Hunter's laptop in 2020?
I like to think of news media as generous, giving folk who every once in a while state a fact rather than tell a preconceived narrative. But facts are coming less and less, and unshakeable narratives abound.
How the fuck does a NYT columnist make enough cash to donate nearly $6M to anything?
And how did he get so rich?
Apparently his late father-in-law was a billionaire. Would assume he is spending his wife’s inheritance that came from his capitalist in-laws.
Joe Smith: "How the fuck does a NYT columnist make enough cash to donate nearly $6M to anything?
Books, I get it. But does anybody read such egghead, lefty drivel?
If so, God bless him..."
Friedman is a Trustafarian and owns a massive mansion in the Hamptons.
He has also written repeatedly of his admiration for the ChiComs and their governmental institutions and how the US should be more like them.
And he wrote those things without any irony at all.
Is Tom Friedman an influential journalist? Isn't he just a tired, predictable, and repetitive spouter of the conventional wisdom of the globalist elites?
There is that website that auto-writes a Tom Friedman op/ed column.
"And how did he get so rich?"
He married Anne Bucksbaum of Chicago, whose father and grandfather founded General Growth Properties, which developed shopping centers around the country.
If i'm a stock reporter, and i
a) buy a Bunch of stock in a company
b) write article after article telling people what a stock it is, and how they should buy it
if THAT "ethical" ? How is That different? How DID friedman get So rich?
The whole question is moot.
The only reason you care about who donates to what is because there is some credentialing and guild exclusion to the reporting profession.
As we are seeing now there are much more influential substacks and podcasts with much broader reach and really more influence than an obvious corporate shill and paid for CCP spokeman from the NYT's.
The only reason to read anything Thomas Friedman writes is to show tribal affiliation and participate in confirmation bias.
He doesn't represent the people who professes to represent. Just like the rest of GOPe/NeverTrumper Inc.
He is a complete fraud and non-entity.
"How the fuck does a NYT columnist make enough cash to donate nearly $6M to anything?"
He married into wealth.
"Doesn't everyone know by now that Tom Friedman is a fucking liberal fraud?"
Well, sure...because he is, at best, middle of the road, and hardly a firebrand "liberal," (if there is such as thing as a firebrand liberal). Essentially, he is four-square for the status quo.
By far the best takedown of Thomas Friedman that I ever read was this review of The Earth is Flat.
http://www.nypress.com/news/flathead-OVNP1020050426304269992
Whether giving or receiving, it's a matter of whether the writer is influenced by the outside group, or can reasonably be perceived as being influenced. If so, and if the publisher/employer cares, then disclose the connection. As others note above, now do the major political parties.
I am not bothered by this particular problem, but don't lie to me about how news organizations ban the practice of accepting money from the people and organizations that they write about.
The purpose of conflict of interest requirements is that the public should know if you are a major advocate of a policy or an objective observer. You can say what you will, but in an honest system, you come clean about your apparent biases. Otherwise you can be accused of deception, which should be a problem.
"Is this a problem"
No. Friedman is a lib in good standing, so no.
"what is the agenda of the people who are pushing the notion that this is problem?"
He's not left enough, so there's that.
“If Tucker Carlson had a charity and was giving money to the Proud Boys”
Turn the hypo into an empirical question: does anyone actually donate to the Proud Boys? Besides the FBI, that is.
How to become a billionaire.
Step one: marry the daughter of a billionaire.
I'd be more interested in the sources of money coming in.
Thomas Friedman is, I dunno, a worthless piece of effing shittim wood.
My New Year's Resolution-to-be is to stop ripping on people. How'm I doing?
"By far the best takedown of Thomas Friedman that I ever read was this review of The Earth is Flat.
http://www.nypress.com/news/flathead-OVNP1020050426304269992
12/21/21, 11:46 AM"
Ah, an oldie but goodie! I remember reading it in the NYPress (sadly missed and badly needed today) at the time.
"He married Anne Bucksbaum of Chicago, whose father and grandfather founded General Growth Properties, which developed shopping centers around the country."
In other words, they did money laundering for the drug cartels.
Robert Cook said...
Well, sure...because he is, at best, middle of the road
Kinda curious Robert? Could you tell us 2 people; that, To You, are left wing?
Blogger Joe Smith said...How the fuck does a NYT columnist make enough cash to donate nearly $6M to anything?
Your typical NY Times columnist is old money. They were donating 6 million dollars to dumb causes long before they thought about buying a sinecure in the Time’s editorial suite.
'Friedman married a billionaire.'
So like Beta O'Rourke and John Heinz?
Nice work if you can get it.
Cue: 'I'm just a gigolo...'
There is that website that auto-writes a Tom Friedman op/ed column.
The New York Times no longer runs op-eds; they're now called "guest essays." And Friedman doesn't write those, he writes columns. Here's a Friedman sentence generator. Unfortunately it doesn't create a whole column, but you could try repeatedly hitting enter and stringing the random sentences together. Just click the yellow "Re-pontificate" button above the red box in that BuzzFeed article.
I don't see what's unethical about giving money to a charity that supports positions you advocate absent some sort of kickback. Receiving money without disclosure would be a problem.
Rush Limbaugh frequently mentioned charities he supported and encouraged his listeners to donate as well. I thought it was endearing.
Joe Smith: "So like Beta O'Rourke and John Heinz?
Nice work if you can get it.
Cue: 'I'm just a gigolo...'"
I think you meant John Kerry, not John Heinz.
Robert Cook: "Well, sure...because he is, at best, middle of the road, and hardly a firebrand "liberal," (if there is such as thing as a firebrand liberal). Essentially, he is four-square for the status quo."
Note to self: big time ChiCom fanboys are "middle of the road" according to Cookie.
Kind of explains just how far left Cookie is, whuch probably impresses the other teachers lounge hang abouts.
Yes, giving money to a group biases you to think more favorably of the group. It's also evidence that you think favorably of the group, as is writing an article in support of the group. I'm not sure I see the problem from one more bias on top of the myriad flagrant lies typical of journo practice.
Yes, giving money to a group biases you to think more favorably of the group. It's also evidence that you think favorably of the group, as is writing an article in support of the group. I'm not sure I see the problem from one more bias on top of the myriad flagrant lies typical of journo practice. Declaring your financial support of the organization you're covering would be a generous disclosure and I encourage it.
He uses his position to advocate for various causes. The same as the rest of his colleagues at NYT.
He's just more generous than most of them.
'I think you meant John Kerry, not John Heinz.'
No I didn't : )
Friedman lives in absurdly large mansion with his own private helicopters and jets while earning millions(he also gets paid to speak to these groups and doesn't disclose it) while berating blue collar working men for owning work trucks.
That should be his disclosure, plus ever five figure honorarium he gets from leftists and libertarians to carry on about free markets and environmentalism.
Writing a positive article about a group you support is essentially a "donation in kind".
Seems a bit unethical for him to use his company's resources for his own personal interests that way
gilbar said...
Robert Cook said...
Well, sure...because he is, at best, middle of the road
Kinda curious Robert? Could you tell us 2 people; that, To You, are left wing?
Well, I'm pretty sure he claims that Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao were all "middle of the road". Certainly not "hard core leftists".
Maybe Pol Pot is "left wing" to Cookie
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा