Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I'd absolutely attend.
It would violate my ethics if an expectation was made in person or in writing that I would "slant" my writing to favor this candidate after attending such a thing.
I think it's actually MORE of an insult to imply that I can be bought off. I don't see anything ethically wrong with taking a $100,000 gift from someone, either, because I'm able to say that it wouldn't effect my ability as a neutral journalist.
|
I have to say, I simply don't believe you. I'm not saying you're lying outright, but either you're deluding yourself, or you're one ungrateful S.O.B.
How could someone take a $100,000 gift, and not feel grateful? And, feeling grateful towards someone makes you naturally more inclined to be favorably disposed to them.
Even if you can someone not be influenced, the appearance of conflict of interest is harmful as well.
If you don't mind, how about another thought experiment.
Your neighbor sues you for $1 million dollars because he says you caused damage to his property. You did no such thing, and are completely innocent. I happen to be the judge on the case, and I arrive at the courthouse in the new sports car your neighbor bought for me, declare you liable for all damages, and leave for a celebratory game of golf with your neighbor. You complain that I was biased, but I repeats the statement that you just made - "I don't see anything ethically wrong with taking a $100,000 gift from someone, because I'm able to say that it wouldn't effect my ability as a neutral judge."
Thoughts? The only difference I see in this and the case of the journalists and McCain is one of degree - you say the journalists aren't influenced by the lavish gift (ignoring the 'buddying up' aspect of it), and I say I'm not influenced by the nice sports car your neighbor bought for me.