Washington Post Paul Farhi was a media reporter who came up with a fresh angle Tuesday. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Friedman was asked by the columnist Thomas Friedman: Is Friedman required to disclose information about organizations he funds through his foundation? This seems obvious. It isn’t. TimesSays no. Farhi began:
The author of two dozen opinion columns New York Times Thomas Friedman has praised Conservation International over the last 15 years. He’s quoted its executives, employees and board members as experts on a variety of topics…He’s even traveled with the group’s scientists on excursions it organized to study fragile ecosystems in South America, Africa and Asia.
“Lost there, felt here,” he wrote in 2009, citing the group’s slogan — a reminder, he said, “that our natural world and climate constitute a tightly integrated system, and when species, forests and ocean life are depleted in one region, their loss will eventually be felt in another.”
What Friedman hasn’t divulged in any of his columns is that his family is a major financial supporter of Conservation International. According to public tax records, Friedman’s family foundation has donated $5.9 million to the organization since 2007, including $1.25 million in 2015….
The three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author and his wife have been quiet benefactors, through their Ann B. and Thomas L. Friedman Family Foundation, of a long list of nonprofit groups engaged in education, environmental preservation and women’s health care, among other causes.
You might be able to guess that Friedman’s foundation donated $5,000 recently to Planned Parenthood (women’s health care).
At a Times shareholders meeting by a left-wing activist named Michael Petrelis. It was handed to A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher. Subordinates found it unnecessary.
TimesDanielle Rhoades Ha, spokeswoman for The New York Times, reiterated this conclusion last month. She spoke to The Post that although receiving money from an outside source might pose a conflict, “giving money to an organization doesn’t present the same issue.” Friedman isn’t receiving a personal benefit, she said, so “we see no ethical concern.”
Friedman refused to comment on this article.
It is always funny when journalists say transparency doesn’t need to be necessary and that the journalist refuses to return calls regarding his lack thereof.
Petrelis didn’t seem to be moved. He told Farhi “If Tucker Carlson had a charity and was giving money to the Proud Boys, I’d want to know that, and his viewers would want to know that.”
Although readers wouldn’t consider it necessary that a columnist disclose his giving to Planned Parenthood and other political charities, transparency is a good idea when you’re citing advocacy groups as some of the best experts.
Media companies and their owners would find it unbearable to have to disclose all of their philanthropic connections. Let’s start with Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and their charitable giving. The Washington PostIt would take a lot of time to track all that down.
About Post Author
You may also like
-
The Benefits of Movable Soundproof Room Dividers: Flexibility, Noise Control, and Sustainable Design
-
What to Do Following an Unfair Workers’ Compensation Denial
-
Benefits of Utilizing After School Programs
-
Why Is Extra Security Needed for Events and Meetings?
-
How to Skip the Hassle of PA’s with Orbit AI