wow, so scary, I guess...

When I was in school we use to have at least 2 or 3 bomb threats a year in order to not attend classes, looks so legit that people is running in desperation...

If individual Breitbart employees would, with their private money, crowd fund Donald Trump's campaign, the situation would be comparable. And I wouldn't accuse them of corruption because of this, if it came to light.

In fact, professing this kind of fanaticism for the candidate would be a neat way for Breitbart to explain the intense appearance of paid positive coverage away!

Outright corruption, no, but that doesn't change the fact that it'd be incredibly unprofessional and unethical. Many outlets consider it a serious enough offense to suspend or fire journalists who engage in such behavior, and that kind of thing is widely considered a no-no if the SPJ webpage about political involvement is any indication. Money changing hands between a journalist and their subject creates a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed at the very least, and should be avoided if at all possible.

You may have low standards for journalists (which isn't surprising given how awful modern journalism has become), but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be expected to avoid writing about people they're involved with monetarily or emotionally. That's their job, and just because other people suck at it doesn't mean they suddenly get to play by a looser set of rules.

Journalists going out of their way to promote and support one political candidate(or anything else for that matter) is misuse of power and position. It is clearly corrupt and unethical to use one's credibility and position to unjustly promote anyone or anything. If it wasn't, journos would be part of kickstarter teams where they'd hype up the game because it wasn't unethical and then run off like most shady kickstarter idiots do.

If any of those employees wrote any of the favorable articles or were responsible for editing them, then there would clearly be a conflict of interest. Hands down, no question at all.

The next thing which is strange is how 4 days ago you were the one who brought up Milo's alleged paid Trump coverage. Now you claim its not an issue (since it incriminates journalists who are pro-aGG) yet if that's the case, what was the point of bringing it up in the first place? Sure seems like you weren't prepared for the rebuttal...and now are changing your tune in a "Vain" attempt to save face...


If you actually look at some of Milo's articles about Trump, I'm not even sure how favorable they are. They talk about him a lot, but when terms like "lovable, mega-rich windbag" and calling him "Fuckface von Clownstick" are used, both by Milo, its not clear how much they really are endorsing him. Instead it looks more like he's being covered because its something to write about and other boring stodgy republicans don't make good stories.

OMG what if Milo has a crush on this Trump fellow?

Just to be clear: When an editor gives money to a subject of positive coverage, it's identical to when an editor takes money from a subject of positive coverage?

Yes, because it is showing they have a bias toward the subject. Conflict of interest, thus cannot be relied upon to fairly report the issue.

If it was not motivated by extra $ changing pockets between the 2 it's fine. But if someone paid for positive coverage, its bribery and bribery = very wrong.

Not if the new positive coverage is about some new incident or an old incident dug up just for positive coverage and nothing else. If they do something positive, journos can report it in any light as long as their is evidence to back up their claim and no bias to or against the subject.

We're talking about exactly the opposite situation from bribery of a journalist: When the journalist gives money to the subject of their coverage. Obviously, if the writer is receiving money for any reason then very strict scrutiny is demanded.

But isn't that past positive coverage evidence of bias in favor of the subject at least as much as subscribing to their Patreon is? I mean, there can't be much more concrete evidence that you have a positive opinion about someone or something than saying so in a published piece.
I'm just trying to figure out the boundaries on critics/enthusiast press paying for media they may review. It seems obviously acceptable to buy a work in order to review it, and that would presumably include such things as MMO subscriptions or DLC passes. I'd like to isolate the thing(s) that make(s) those scenarios different from supporting a Patreon.

But who is paid for positive coverage? I'm not quite seeing how your statement makes sense. If someone with a gaming site, for example, likes a specific game kickstarter and covers it favourably on their site, and also contributes to the kickstarter, who is bribing who? The writer is bribing the game developer for positive coverage (by giving them money and positive coverage)?
Please explain.

Someone mentioned something along the lines of "If they were biased, then they'd join the kickstarter teams and run off with the money!", which again, makes no sense. At the point when the writer is getting PAID to write positive coverage of a thing (kickstarter, for example), then we're obviously in dangerous and shady area. But that isn't the example being given here. The example here is someone who is simultaneously a consumer and a writer exercising the writes inherent with both those positions. Nothing shady or underhanded about it. If a writer is writing positive coverage of a thing (such as kickstarter), then we already know that they are positively biased towards it. Whether or not they secretly (or openly) are contributing to it as well is not really relevant. In fact, I'd say it'd be weirder if someone wrote positively of such a campaign, and yet DIDN'T contribute (unless it was a matter of lack of finances).

When I share a kickstarer link to my hundreds of friends (:D yeah sure) on facebook, as the kickstarter devs often implore everyone to do, saying "This kickstarter is awesome!", am I being unethical because I didn't mention that I backed it?

It doesn't really work that way. You giving money to them is not going to change your opinion of them, since you had good enough feel to donate

Yes, that is my point. So then why is it unethical?