“[W]hen those donors give that money,” ABC host and commentator George Stephanopoulos said to Jon Stewart last month, “there’s a hope that that’s going to lead to something.”
Stephanopoulos was impugning (or perhaps more accurately, describing) the motives of many people who had given money to the now-very-controversial Clinton Foundation. He failed to mention that he himself had given $75,000 — a fact he was forced to admit last week after Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon began asking questions about it.
As author Peter Schweizer had pointed out in Clinton Cash, the large donors to the Clinton Foundation were very often seeking State Department favors during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Stephanopoulos actually interviewed Schweizer on the topic recently on national television. Curiously, at no point did he mention that he was involved with the very foundation they were discussing.
So what’s wrong with what Stephanopoulos did? One possibility is that he has subtly started a bidding war. Journalists irritated by Hillary Clinton’s game of hide-and-seek with the press should perhaps try giving to the Clinton Foundation if they want their questions answered.
Or perhaps, as Michael Kinsley wryly hinted, maybe the $75,000 donation “merely got him out of the doghouse.” Stephanopoulos, after all, left the Clinton’s service on unfavorable terms.
No matter what the explanation, the donation was a large mistake in judgment; the decision not to disclose it when directly covering the subject was an even bigger mistake.
Yes, Stephanopoulos’ prior relationship with the Clintons was known already. But given that thousands of worthy, non-politically connected charities exist, why give to the one that is run by people he covers, comments on, and interviews for a living? And then, when the foundation itself became an issue, how did it seem like a good idea to give and conduct interviews on the topic without bringing up his own connection to it?
Stephanopoulos’ problem is not that anyone can prove he was corrupted by ongoing, overly chummy relationships with the people he covers. The problem is that he even created the occasion for such a question to be asked in the first place.
Journalists go to great lengths to avoid not just conflicts, but also the appearance thereof. When the asset being guarded is one’s integrity, bad appearances matter almost as much as the reaal thing. Even innocent behavior that might give the wrong impression is avoided.
This is why most journalists refuse to give any money to political campaigns, or take free trips or meals, or invest in companies they might write about — even if all of these things seem like legitimate behavior when taken on their own terms and do not necessarily signal corruption. Such safeguards are intended to go above and beyond to preserve the appearance of propriety.
Last week, Stephanopoulos reacted to the mess he had caused by announcing he would not be moderating any presidential debates in 2016. Maybe that will be enough to mollify his critics, and maybe it won’t. Again, Stephanopoulos needs to salvage his credibility, something that can only be bestowed by the masses.
With his mistakes in this matter, he threw himself to the wolves. He will have to accept whatever verdict they return.
