.jpg)
Talking "journalistic ethics" (giggle) is tantamount to a parlor game for me. It’s a losing pastime because there is no journalism judge, jury or definitive ruling body to make the final call.
In fact, what the digital age has shown is that ANYONE can practice journalism and those old talk shows on PBS – full of hot air regarding the state of "journalism" – don’t really have any more insight than anybody else.
It’s not rocket science. When The Founders first developed their adherence to the principles of free speech, the "media" had even more "citizen journalists" than today, and corporate gatekeepers had yet to find a way to control and limit the opinion of the masses.
Still, along the way there have been customs and mores developed that are still prized by most people practicing journalism. And that’s what we’re here to talk about today.
The question: Is it kosher that current blogger and former Star reporter Jim Fitzpatrick is making significant donations to a KC Mayoral Candidate but only finally noted his contributions in one, tiny reference last week?
Just so picky, white, angry KCC readers don’t think I’m making this up I’ve pulled the Missouri Ethics Commission Record to back up my claim. The record shows Fitzpatrick maxed out his contribution level. However, Fitzpatrick didn’t note his love for Burke was backed up with cash until around Valentine’s Day. AFTER he had given 1,000 bucks. Fitz gave Burke $3,000 total, the maximum allowed by Kansas City election law.
And while Fitzpatrick repeatedly criticizes mainstream media like the Star for deviating from old school journalistic standards, in the case of his support of Burke he’s gone native with his biases like an untrained blogger.
This isn’t the first time Fitz has encountered an "issue" regarding cash and journalism.
I don’t want to get into ancient history but there is a persistent story about a front page correction from no less than former Star editor and current New York Times public editor Art Brisbane offering an apology for Fitzpatrick using his cash on some story that I don’t even remember. The story, when relayed to me,. actually seemed very enterprising. But I guess journalism purists find fault with reporters using their own resources to help make the news. I get that but don’t really understand it.
My verdict. Nobody else much really noticed Fitzpatrick’s persistent endorsement of Burke so I guess it’s not a big deal.
Jim is retired, so he probably doesn’t want a job as press secretary and he doesn’t own a construction firm or belong to a union so these significant donations should maybe seem a little less devious.
Furthermore, because Fitz was writing in blog form and offering opinion THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE READER to make their own judgements about the veracity of what’s being published. What I like about blogs is that this questioning of source material is implicit, whereas in the paper, for some stupid reason, people tend to MISTAKENLY believe that everything published is fact.
Finally, Fitz did cop to his big money donations even though nobody was asking and that shows some integrity on his part.
However, what we see from this voyage from Star to blog for a former Big Time Reporter is that it’s not "journalism" people want but well-researched and thoughtful content. Nowadays most J-Schools concede that "objectivity is a myth" and reporters aren’t robots simply spewing out facts.
Instead, Fitzpatrick shows us that some people can respect the opinion of a former newsman, forgive his obvious bias if they choose, and take what they want from his writing.
Whether through social media, blogging or any electronic format, what’s clear is that old standards aren’t really being degraded. They’ve been abandoned wholesale. And a former newsman is quickly learning that bias and big money gambles are at the heart of the local, online discourse.
I gotta go to work Tony, but when I get home
your ass is gonna look like a Swat Team kicked it in when I respon to this bullshit.
Wow, Chuck. Something to live for.
PS, I gave $100 to Burke.
We are in the Centurion program. We’ve waited 35 years to elect one of our own. Maybe this is the time.
I also called Ch. 41 this morning, because at 5:39 am a young female reporter was at a polling place, and showed the ballot, and ONLY aired video of Funk from last night’s wrap up debate, none of the other candidates. That is preposterous bias. And rather odd, since Marissa Cleaver is another reporter at 41, daughter of Emanuel Cleaver, former mayor, now Congressman. And she would certainly not have aired a stupid package like that, on election morning.
Now he’s writing opinion
It’s a good find but I think since it’s blogging it’s not as serious. There’s no need for disclosure because just like you wrote Tony, it is implicit in the blog format that it’s all opinion.
Wrong-O, pal
I follow Jimmycsays, and have seen him say he’s donated the maximum to Burke on at least four recent blogs. Somebody’s got a different agenda going on here. Get you facts straight for a change.
Tit for tat?
It makes you wonder what kind of personal gain is in it for the person who makes those kinds of political contributions. Especially the maximum allowed.
Where was the full discloser on the $3,000 two months ago
before the donations became public? And wasn’t that the same amount of money David Glass gave the mayor? Seems like a lot of money for an ordinary joe to be shelling out. And in a primary.
lame
The whole point is transparency….once Fitzpatrick clearly stated his support for Burke, any donation, even the maximum, doesn’t change things for a reader. It just measures the enthusiasm of his support, which already was pretty evident by his writing. We filter what we read on the Jimmycsays site (which raises a transparency question for HC–why is Fitzpatrick no longer contributing here?) with the knowledge that he supports burke….and I think he was pretty detailed in ranking who he favored and why. If you believe his opinion matters, then let it influence you — in any direction. I don’t know his financial status but he retired after 30 plus years at the Star and probably took part in the lucrative stock options along the way, so it’s no surprise that he could drop 3k on a candidate. And as someone above has already pointed out, Fitzpatrick has mentioned his donation on his blog plenty of times–there is no way Tony B. can build a case that Fitzpatrick is trying to obscure his donation or his involvement–today he spelled out with menu-by-menu detail how he helped persuade Wheeler to throw his support to Burke.
He spelled it out months after not spelling it out
Only when the campaign disclosures were forthcoming. But you’re right, why isn’t he writing here anymore?
Barkeeper and Bostock beat me to it.
I would have included the standard ad hominem insults, but the previous commenters made all my points, with a cooler head.
Good night Gracie…