George Stephanopoulos — ABC’s chief anchor, chief political correspondent and a “Good Morning America” host — recently admitted he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation since 2011. The admission raised questions about his ability to cover the presidential campaign fairly, and he apologized. It turned out that PBS journalist Judy Woodruff and other media organizations and figures had also donated.
Is this proof of a media biased in favor of Clinton? Or is something else going on here? Joel Mathis and guest writer Julie Ponzi, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, debate the issue.
It’s not a big deal
As if on cue, we saw the political divide sharpen by outrage on one side and defensiveness on the over the revelation that ABC’s George Stephanopoulos made $75,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The antagonists appear stuck on the question of whether Stephanopoulos should be considered a serious, “objective” television journalist given these revelations.
What a silly question.
What exactly is this mythical creature, “the objective journalist”? We nod our heads in obedient consensus that objectivity should be paramount to “serious journalism.” Media outlets speak of “trust” and “integrity.” Why do we believe it?
We are far more sophisticated about the manipulations in advertising — at least when we want to be. Similarly, we are far more aware of the degree to which politicians and their handlers are presenting us with “spin.” Yet we speak in hushed tones and with feigned shades of respect when the subject is journalism — as if the world were teeming with Spock-like characters devoid of bias, emotion or even judgment. It is laughable to imagine such people writing for the papers. It is hilarious to imagine that measured souls like this are lining up to seek work on television.
The joke is on us and it has been for a long time.
Let’s out with all of this nonsense, shall we? Stephanopoulos should not lose his job. He is what he is and, armed with that information, there is something to be gleaned from even the most insipid and cliched bits of his commentary. Granted, it’s not what he or ABC, presumably, thinks it is. But there is truth to learn even in lies.
We need be more aware of the low-caliber infotainment we are consuming when we digest the TV dinner equivalent of knowledge about the world. If we really want to know more, there’s no substitute for the hard work of real reading, serious thinking and spirited conversation. Like eating on the fly, guys like Stephanopoulos have a role to play in that process. But we can’t consider their offerings alone as constituting a healthy diet.
—Julie Ponzi
It is a big deal
Did anybody really think George Stephanopoulos could actually be “objective” when it came to the Clintons?
The man helped Bill Clinton become president in 1992, for goodness’ sake. He climbed to fame as a member of the Clinton White House. He didn’t get his first job as a reporter for ABC News because he’d slogged the hard way up through the ranks; he was hired for his public familiarity and good looks. “Objectivity” didn’t really factor into the equation.
Is there a problem with bias here? Sure. But the problem isn’t liberalism. (Diane Sawyer, Stephanopoulos’ predecessor as ABC’s chief anchor, was a member of Richard Nixon’s White House staff, after all.) The problem is the establishment. And that problem has far bigger implications for democracy.
In an ideal world, the government and the people who report on it wouldn’t be so cozy. In real life — scratch that, in “Beltway real life,” which is real but different — people slip back and forth between journalism and politics with little effort. The result? Too little independence, too much reliance on access, and way too much timidity about breaking from the pack.
It’s why you see the president and reporters hanging out and making jokes at White House correspondents’ dinners. It’s why the press largely couldn’t be bothered to challenge the official, incorrect rush to war in Iraq a decade ago. And it’s why “real” reporters have such deep unease with people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who reveal to us — truthfully, factually, correctly — that our government has gone overboard in the name of fighting terrorism, that it has been spying on us with little regard for restraint.
You’ll notice that Edward Snowden isn’t lined up for gigs in network television. He’s not hanging around the jokey dinners. Nobody’s offering him a job in politics or government. Instead, he’s in exile — maybe never to return.
It makes the Stephanopoulos check to the Clinton Foundation look relatively petty, by comparison.
— Joel Mathis
Joel Mathis is associate editor at Philadelphia Magazine. Julie Ponzi is a fellow at The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
