The Romney campaign sent out a press release earlier in the day marking the occasion, entitled “Happy 15th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker” that listed a series of articles from the time explaining what Gingrich had done. The press release also notes that Gingrich called the ethics investigation partisan, and that it was rated “Pants of Fire,” as far as accuracy is concerned, by Politifact. Had that been the end of it, it would’ve been a witheringly comical example of how much Romney and Gingrich– and their camps– can’t stand to look at each other. But Romney HQ wants to make sure they get their message across, so they’re bearing gifts:

Not to be outdone, Romney’s campaign later put out a statement celebrating the “15th anniversary” of the House decision to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations, during his days as speaker. The Romney campaign plans to deliver an anniversary cake to Gingrich’s South Carolina headquarters to mark the occasion on Saturday.

No word on whether the cake has been delivered or just who in Romney’s campaign is going to show up at Gingrich HQ, so it is as yet unclear whether this will result in a failed publicity stunt of a West Side Story-esque rumble. Either way, we can’t wait to hear what food item Gingrich will order to respond to such generosity from Romney’s camp.

[Photo via]

Candy Crowley brought up the ad, hoping to get Pelosi to expand on her comments last month that when the time is right, she would dish some dirt on Gingrich acquired from being on a committee that investigated him in the 90s. When Crowley reminded Pelosi of her comments, Pelosi insisted what she meant was for people to read Gingrich’s public record during his time in office. She did not say whether or not anything in his record was a disqualifying factor to becoming the president, however.

But Pelosi didn’t let Gingrich get away so easily, getting in this quick swipe at him:

“Since you brought up my name in association with him as the dumbest thing he ever did, I think there’s plenty of stiff competition for that honor as far as his activities are concerned.”

In the first part of the interview, Pelosi alleged that Gingrich was fined $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee. Later on in the show, Crowley gave Gingrich’s response to the charge, with the candidate claiming the money was paid to reimburse the cost of the House investigation.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

And watch Crowley read Gingrich’s response here:

While recording himself “skateboarding adventurously”, sources told John Cook, the teen fell and sustained a severe head injury which left him “comatose.”

An Anderson representative explained that producers had sought video footage and photos for the segment. “We did not provide the family with a camera. On the morning that they were supposed to travel to NYC, we learned that the teen had been injured. We are very concerned about him, and are thinking of him and his family at this time,” the rep said.

“I was very saddened to hear the news of this accident and want to express my deepest concerns for the teenager who was injured,” Cooper said in a statement. “I take this situation seriously, and my thoughts and prayers for his health, well-being and recovery are with him and his family.”

Cooper has regularly called out various media personalities to uphold good ethics in broadcast journalism; will he take responsibility on the air for this tragedy?

Watch a Today show segment on the tragedy below:

Robertson’s provocative statement was spurred on by a viewer email who detailed a friend going through difficult times with his significant other who suffered from the disease and didn’t even recognize him anymore. The viewer’s friend wondered if he should be allowed to see other people.

“I know it sounds cruel,” answered the Christian broadcaster. “But if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.”

Co-host Terry Meeuwsen questioned Robertson about whether marriage vows should matter, where a couple pledge to be together “for better or for worse”. Robertson responded, “If you respect that vow, you say ’til death do us part. This is a kind of death.”

Perhaps realizing the potential controversy from his response, Robertson added an addendum, “Get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer.”

Watch the segment below, courtesy of CBN:

The 80-year-old Democrat from New York’s Harlem neighborhood wants his punishment for ethics violations downgraded to a reprimand, according to congressional and nongovernment sources who are in touch with Rangel but are not authorized to be quoted by name.

Rangel will ask the House ethics committee chairman, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., for time to plead his case on the floor of the House, where he has served for 40 years, including a stint as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel will argue that his punishment is too harsh for his violations, and that censure, the harshest form of punishment, is usually reserved for bribery, accepting improper gifts, personal use of campaign funds and sexual misconduct — none of which Rangel committed. However, he faces an uphill battle getting the House Ethics Committee to reconsider their decision.

Watch Rep. Rangel refuse to participate in his Ethics Hearing on Nov 15th below:

It was a rant that slammed everyone from House Democrats to Pres. Barack Obama – and he promised not to go away anytime soon. Watch this video.

This was a very senior member of Congress, who clearly thinks he’s been wronged by both the press and his colleagues, sounding off about exactly the way he feels. And he’s pissed off. Here’s a selection of some of the best quotes:

• “The President wants dignity, let’s have dignity in this house, where the ethics committee means something. And that none of you, if the newspapers say anything, will have to wait two years before you can say ‘no comment.’”

• “Why did I take the floor today? When I haven’t found one lawyer that said I should do it. I haven’t even found one friend that said I should do it.”

• “If I can’t get my dignity back here, then fire your best shot in getting rid of me through expulsion.”

• “Hey, if I was you I may want me to go away too. I am not going away! I am here!”

And to tie this to yesterday’s crazy story of the day, Chuck Todd wondered on MSNBC if Rangel “found inspiration in that JetBlue flight attendant or something.”

Check it out:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

John Feehery is an example. He has worked on BP’s account with the Brunswick Group, according to the article, but also has appeared on CNN and MSNBC saying he’d “like the administration to focus on plugging the damn hole.” There is nothing fundamentally wrong or misleading about that–except that he was identified on television as Republican strategist.

Feehery defended himself:

“I didn’t think we were going to talk about the issue,” he said. “I should have said something, and I regret that I didn’t, but my message then wasn’t approved by BP, nor was it a BP message, nor did I think of BP when I said it.”

MSNBC did not respond to a request for comment.

Along the same lines, CNN contributor Alex Castellanos and political commentator Steve McMahon have also been hired to help with BP’s PR fiasco. But to CNN’s credit, both Castellanos and McMahon have been covering other issues:

“Both Alex and Hilary are contributors used primarily to comment on political issues, and they are not being used to discuss the oil disaster story,” CNN spokeswoman Edie Emery said.

Avoiding a conflict of interest is a fundamental principle of journalism. Networks, especially with such a messy situation, should be making sure they keep track of them and are engaging in full disclosure.

After singing the praises of renowned lyrical bard Roland Burris, who Blagojevich appointed to assume the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, the former governor went on the attack against those who initially refused to seat Burris in the Senate due to their sneaking suspicion that Burris had engaged in some sort of illegal exchange of benefits with Blagojevich for the position. Blagojevich went for the obvious reason why they would ever suspect of politicians with as immaculate a moral record as them: Burris is black (and also possibly because Blagojevich is “blacker than Barack Obama,” though he did not cite that evidence this time around):

The great irony of course is, in the age of Obama, my fellow Democrats, and your Senator Dick Durbin, and Harry Reid, are keeping him out of the U.S. Senate, like they were some segregationist governors in Mississippi and Arkansas.

Blagojevich’s shamelessness at playing the race card is nothing new but just when his repertoire appears to become stale, he turns the tables and unexpectedly tones down the entire operation. After some hearty booing from the crowd, one of the hecklers was courageous enough to yell “shame!”, which Blagojevich immediately assumed was directed at Burris. When the heckler confirmed his jeering was, in fact, directed at the former governor, Blagojevich replied “I’ve got nothing but love in my heart for you.”

Slightly less menacing than that Van Jones version of tough love he used on Glenn Beck last week (“I love you and there’s nothing you can do about it“), but that’s precisely why it works. Just when Blagojevich has his audience conditioned to expect nothing less than delusional outrage, he pulls out a new weapon: an olive branch.

Video of the Blagojevich lecture courtesy The Daily Northwestern (via TPM):

From the Daily Northwestern:

“A conversation about ethics and politics is important to have,” said Dan Rockoff, vice president of programming for College Democrats. “There isn’t a better person out there to discuss this than former Governor Rod Blagojevich.” [...]

“Our belief is that students at Northwestern are interested in debating this issue,” [Rockoff] said. “They will be interested to see this kind of dialogue.”

Derrick Wu said he was excited when he received a Facebook invite to the event. “It is absolutely a great idea to bring a prominent, controversial figure,” the Bienen and Weinberg sophomore said.

Before picking up our pitchforks, it may be important to note that they might just have a point. Unlike Spitzer, whose indiscretions were completely unrelated to his capacity as governor and only generated the level of outrage it did because it highlighted the hypocrisy in his desire to expose others who behaved similarly, Blagojevich was never exactly a man of virtue. His supporters fed on his image as a working-class family man doing everything he can to keep his family afloat, and technically, trading a Senate seat for money doesn’t contradict that. And that, of course, is assuming he is guilty, which he denies.

There is a tendency among many in the powers-that-be to belittle or silence Blagojevich in the public eye because of his idiosyncrasies, an unfortunate reality for any public figure with a modicum of personality (for recent examples see Conan O’Brien or Johnny Weir). Somehow, his hair and his running outfit and his outrageous press conferences are enough evidence to dismiss the presumption of innocence.

On the flip side, if Blago is as guilty as his hair is voluminous, he would still be an expert in his field. Only a master in ethics could subvert ethical codes the way Blago is supposed to have done so, and spend the next year or so vehemently denying it. If he’s guilty, he is a walking instruction manual on how politicians should not behave, one that, well, should be taught in schools.

The intern in question is an Internet prodigy who had been with TechCrunch since August 2008. According to his blog, he has allies such as Robert Scoble and has spoken at conferences around the world, like BizTech Day, the International Consumer Electronics Show, MacWorld 2010 and Under 21 – Digital Natives in Rome. He also started the Teens in Tech Network.

But despite Brusilovsky’s Internet prowess, he’s can’t yet legally drink, smoke cigarettes, rent a car, purchase pornography or be sued. That’s right, Brusilovsky is under 18. As a result, TechCrunch only revealed his identity after Brusilovsky addressed the issue on his personal blog:

“In some way or another, a line was crossed that should have never been,” Brusilovsky writes. “At this time, I do not want to go into details, but I will publicly say that I am truly sorry to my family, friends, TechCrunch, and especially the tech community…This is the first day of the next learning stage for me. Yes, I am young, but from here, I can only learn more.”

Clearly, Brusilovsky’s experience precedes his maturity, as it would for anyone so young. However, as the blogosphere grows, and old-school publications like this one have trouble adapting, youth will increasingly become the content creators. They either don’t need to produce such high-profile pieces, or they need a journalism boot camp.

However, this also highlights the broader issue of freelancer and intern compensation. Check out this August 2008 post from TechCrunch’s blog:

“Summer is a great time at TechCrunch – a flood of smart, enthusiastic and, best of all, cheap labor flows into our office (my house in Atherton), and stuff just starts getting done. And since my house is overrun with these bright and cheery young faces who are just so ridiculously enthusiastic about everything, I bail for most of the summer to the San Juan Islands in Washington.”

If the interns’ value-add is so high that Arrington can skip down to the San Juan Islands, then perhaps they should be paid more. Or at least allowed to accept compensation with full disclosure.

The same goes for print publications, as most recently highlighted by The New York Times contentiously strict freelancer policies. Publications can’t afford full-time staff. Freelancers can’t afford to live on meager wages. So if the Times can adapt their paper to the iPad, then they should also be able to adapt their policies to an increasingly freelance-driven workplace.

Chris’s father is Bob Elliott, one half of the legendary radio comedy team Bob and Ray. Bob’s wife’s first husband was Raymond Knight, a radio comedian of the 1930s who was born in 1899, which means that Abby Elliott is heir to, as Wikipedia points out, “a comedic lineage that spans across three centuries.”

Before you rail on the Times for hypocrisy or a loosening of its editorial standards, take a look at the chronology that got us here. This isn’t actually the first time the Times has cited Wikipedia as a source. Paul Krugman referred to the site as a resource for a 2006 column. Yet no news story, to my knowledge, has included Wikipedia in its reporting.

That doesn’t mean the writing wasn’t on the wall. A 2007 Times story documents how often judges turn to the “collaborative online encyclopedia” as a source in their decisions:

“Wikipedia is a terrific resource,” said Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. “Partly because it so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate.” But, he added: “It wouldn’t be right to use it in a critical issue. If the safety of a product is at issue, you wouldn’t look it up in Wikipedia.”

That was clearly not done here — indeed, the fact cited is just that, a fact, independently verifiable (and presumably independently verified). But beyond that, per Posner, it’s not surprising to discover that Times reporters might rely on Wikipedia for research for their articles. In fact, if a reporter were to discount the site in the name of journalistic integrity he or she could face scrutiny for overlooking potential information or leads. For an article about the Elliott family of comedians, writer Ed Zuckerman couldn’t possibly have imagined a better Web site to learn the basics about his subjects than Wikipedia.

Here’s the difficulty that arises, though: Often the site will provide the most succinct and digestible way to describe the topic at hand. That seems to be the case for Zuckerman when he cited something as innocent as “a comedic lineage that spans across three centuries.” Is an attempt to put that sentiment in alternative terms worth the risk of sounding lengthy, clunky or confusing?

Rather than just borrow Wikipedia’s language – or try to package the message some other way – Zuckerman makes the right choice in citing it to the page where he found it. Unless there’s a NYT policy against this specific practice (which there doesn’t seem to be), Zuckerman acted ethically and responsibly. If there needs to be a larger and longer discussion about whether the Times should permit its writers to use Wikipedia at all, that has no bearing on how Zuckerman covered this particular piece.

What’s complicated about Zuckerman’s decision, however, is the fact that you can track down the user who made this change on Raymond Knight’s page. A click of the “history” button reveals his user name as “Woohookitty” and the date (January 2, 2009) he edited it. His profile page says that he’s the eighth-best Wikipedia user in the system, according to number of edits to the overall site. He also appears to take this work seriously, saying:

“My main goal on Wikipedia is to make it as clean and concise as possible. I’ve created a few pages, but for the most part, I do a lot of copyediting and cleanup work.”

While there’s no other identity attached to Woohookitty’s profile, this should be enough to warrant recognition for his contribution to Zuckerman’s research. He sounds as credible as you could wish under the circumstances. If citing Wikipedia as a source becomes standard procedure, we should go to the effort of crediting those who wrote the material being quoted. Reliability aside, attributing something to Wikipedia is akin to citing a forum, message board, or other online discussion. There’s a person behind the post, edit, or suggestion who deserves the pat on the back, not the site that made it possible.

When the New York Times credits “Woohookitty” — well, that’s when you’ll know things have really changed.

Kurtz asked Wilbon about the shortcomings of his fact-checking and the resultant false attribution of a “bogus quote about slavery” to Limbaugh on his ESPN show Pardon the Interruption:

WILBON: That’s a journalistic no-no. What? If I had checked and found out the information that we had basic access to every day on deadline, I might have done it anyway. Still, that’s wrong and a journalistic no-no, and I said that to him.

But Wilbon put the brakes on the pity party there, saying “Let’s not make it seem like Rush Limbaugh has not insulted black people on his radio show… millions of black people know that.”

Meanwhile, Limbaugh has taken to the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to, as usual, decry the hypocrisy of his critics — most notably Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He also singled Wilbon out by name:

Mr. Wilbon wasn’t alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

At this point the discussion of Limbaugh’s role in bidding on a stake in the Rams has moved so far away from the actual news: On Fox News it’s turned into a discussion of racism within the black community that emerges when black people try to defend people like Limbaugh; elsewhere, and on Reliable Sources, it’s turned into a discussion about journalistic ethics. And if Rush Limbaugh has his way, it will turn into one hundred other things (including good ratings) before it leaves the news because he’s had one crazy week of publicity.

ESPN’s Michael Wilbon on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz this morning:

[Insert obligatory respectful John Hughes R.I.P. "Bueller, Bueller" lede here]

The New York Times has ended its relationship with Ben Stein, a sporadic contributor since the early ’80s and lately a Sunday Business columnist, according to Gawker.

Stein was released after his appearance in advertisments for the credit-report service FreeScore.com violated Times ethics policy (video below).

Stein has appeared in advertisements before, most regularly for Clear Eyes, a brand of eye drops that presented no such ethical problems. Reuters blogger Felix Salmon noted in July, however, that Stein had sunk to a new level:

Stein, here, has become a predatory bait-and-switch merchant, dangling a “free” credit report in front of people so that he can sock them with a massive monthly fee for, essentially, doing nothing at all. Naturally, the people who take him up on this offer will be those who can least afford it.

Salmon suggests that Stein’s work for FreeScore.com violates the sections of the Times‘ ethics code that says, “It is an inherent conflict for a journalist to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid… [and] Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except through the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, offer investment advice, or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay.”

Times spokesperson Catherin Mathis told Gawker that Stein didn’t think his advertising work would present a conflict of interest or an ethics violation because he hadn’t written about credit scores for the paper, “But, we decided that being a commercial spokesman for FreeScore while writing his column wouldn’t be appropriate,” she said.

Ben Stein’s FreeScore.com advertisement:

A less contentious advertisement:

Stein’s most infamous on-screen work:

Photo: The Associated Press