Lesley Stahl’s Giant Conflict of Interest–And A Lesson About Ethical Corruption

[marmar]

from the Working Life blog:


Lesley Stahl’s Giant Conflict of Interest–And A Lesson About Ethical Corruption
Posted on 02 May 2013.


Why is Lesley Stahl sitting on the Advisory Board of an organization deeply involved in a contentious political debate? And is her service on that Advisory Board blessed by “60 Minutes”? Or were Stahl’s superiors even aware of her service? In any case, if “60 Minutes” has any inclination to adhere to CBS’ ethical guidelines, Stahl must be forced to resign from the board.

Here is the straightforward story. Stahl is a member of the Advisory Board of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. As I wrote extensively in my book, “It’s Not Raining, We’re Getting Peed On: The Scam of the Deficit Crisis,” no person is more responsible for the hysteria around the phony debt crisis than Pete Peterson. He has bankrolled the campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars — a campaign that has been partly responsible for the attack against the social safety net and Social Security.

I would argue that, in as much as one person can be tagged with creating public policy reality, Pete Peterson has been singularly responsible for the continued misery of millions of Americans who can’t get work — because his maniacal promotion of the phony crisis has led to a failure on the part of the government to inject billions of dollars into an economy where the lack of jobs is the greatest threat to economic vitality. Not that Peterson gives a shit about the average worker — most of his wealth, as I wrote, was made by loading on huge debt to companies, which often resulted in the laying off of workers and the cutting of pay and benefits.

The point here is: Stahl is essentially giving her stamp of approval on an organization that has a very clear agenda. It is a hyper- partisan organization — partisan as defined as biased towards a particular cause. It is no different than the National Rifle Association or the AARP or Amnesty International. Whatever your views are on the agendas promoted by these organizations, either on the left or the right, there is a standard journalistic view that journalists do not serve on organizational boards, advisory or daily management, in order to preserve their “objectivity”. ....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.workinglife.org/2013/05/02/leslie-stahls-giant-conflict-of-interest-and-a-lesson-about-ethical-corruption/

[closeupready]

1. Wow. Disappointing. She was always one I liked.

Guess my admiration was misplaced. K&R

[zeemike]

2. They have dropped the pretense of objectivity.

Now they just do it openly...and what can anyone do about it...they own the media.

[99Forever]

3. K&R

[asjr]

4. Maybe she was put on the board to display "legitimacy". I wish

someone would delve into what boards David Gregory messes up!

[myshadow1]

9. liz cheney and her family are bff's

dancin dave is socially close with liz cheney and her family, their kids attend the same schools, so they probably pollute PTA's for starters.

[pangaia]

5. Leslie Stahl is not a journalist.

None of those 'personalities are." They are just entertainers.
60 Minutes is pretty much the USA TODAY of TV..

[RC]

7. Correct.

The days of real journalist on 60 Minutes are long gone. Now a days, 60 Minutes is mostly fluff and slant.

[zipplewrath]

10. The sad reality of 60 minutes

60 minutes, unfortunately, can probably claim more than anyone or anything else, to be the "first" of the "news as intertainment" phenomenon that we now suffer today. Early on, 60 minutes enjoyed the luxury of the fact that much of the world was unprepared for their style. There was the component of the "gotcha"/Consumer protection schtick that so many local reporters had known. Find the corrupt business and catch them in the act and put them on camera. It makes entertaining television, and to some degree did a public service.

There was also the "in depth" interview. Get a guy in front of a camera, with as much time as you need, and ask really hard questions. Even better if they are some how personally embarrassing, compromising, or expose a hypocracy. Since these interviews were often deeply researched, and conducted over weeks, it became hard to "hide" from them.

The problem is of course is that "the system" has learned to deal with it. Lawyers are used to block interviews, or access. Politicians literally are trained in how to deal with an interview. They've learned to not actually answer quesitons, but either just talk about what they want to say, or attack the interviewer. They often come as prepared as the person conducting the interview, ON the person conducting the interview, as well as 60 Minutes. The counter attack does work too.

So now you basically get out of 60 minutes, interviews with the unsophisticated or ignorant, and in depth reporting on companies too foolish to hire good lawyers.

Oh, and we're still left with the residiual of "infotainment".

[pangaia]

12. Good in depth info...thanks..

Sad isn't it...

[fasttense]

6. Ethical corruption?

Can you have ethical corruption? If it is corrupted ethics, then it is by definition NOT ethical - just corrupted. If it is corruption it can't be ethical. But in today's day and age where words are twisted to hide lies and mean the opposite of what they label, ethical corruption is just as good as all the other descriptions.

[KharmaTrain]

8. As Much Sense As Military Intelligence...

Kudos for pointing this out...

This is just verbage to amp up the outrage...add adjectives and adverbs to suit. Of course, what is ethical varies from person to person and thus you adjust your outrage accordingly.

Word salad seems to be on a lot of menus and agendas these days...

[snagglepuss]

13. What an astute observation. Very illuminating.

[ReRe]

11. Leslie Stahl on Peter G. Peterson Foundation

K&R

... did anyone catch her portion of of 60 Minutes last night? Her make-up artist must have been falling down drunk when applying her lipstick.

And Peter G. Peterson gave $458 Million in 2011 to the "Fix the Debt" Campaign, not just "10s of millions." (Wikipedia). He said the big 3 (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and other safety net programs that aid the poor was in a state of crisis and needed drastic cuts. He's 86, and must be senile. If anything, I think those programs need to be enhanced, not cut. He has to be mad/mentally deranged/senile. What can it be other than madness to think those programs need to be cut? At a time when there has never been a greater gap between the rich and the poor? Why would anyone want to be associated with him since 2011? Answer: Mostly disgustingly rich billionaires. Leslie Stahl isn't a billionaire, is she? How the Hell did she land on the board? (Not to mention the impropriety of it?)

If the old folks & poor want to protest somewhere, it needs to be surrounding the building that Peterson certainly owns in NYCity. Mothers Day Friday would be a great time (this Friday.) OR, in June, grandpas & grandmas could surround the bldg on Father's Day Friday, or Hell, the entire week (M-F)! Thanks marmar for linking to this article.