-
Top Journalism School Called Author’s Work ‘Bullshit’ in 2013
-
Official Use of POTUS Account for Sanctioning or Endorsing Ethically Questionable
Late Tuesday morning President Donald Trump took to the official White House POTUS Twitter account to attack the New York Times, a frequent target of his, while promoting the work of a right wing tabloid opinion writer.Â
“The failing @NYTimes would do much better if they were honest!” the President tweeted, using the official account. That alone is an ethically questionable move. Should the President of the United States be advocating for one business over another? The attack is on The New York Times, Trump’s advocacy is for the New York Post, a rival newspaper in many regards.
That article Trump linked to was authored by New York Post opinion writer John Crudele. The renowned Columbia School of Journalism’s Columbia Journalism Review in 2013 labeled a piece Crudele wrote both “bogus” and “bullshit.”
But we have to ask, should the official account of the President of the United States be used to attack the Times? Or any entity? What message does that send to, say, America’s youth?Â
From an ethics standpoint, Trump, we believe, is on shaky ground – but it’s not the first time. Early last month the President used the POTUS account to re-tweet his attack on Nordstrom, lamenting, falsely, that the high end retailer had treated her “unfairly” to his daughter Ivanka, after it decided to stop carrying her fashion line, citing falling sales.Â
“This is not trivial,†Washington University law professor Kathleen Clark told Fast Company, of Trump’s tweet attacking Nordstrom. “Trump is using government power for his personal purposes.â€
Granted, this is not an apples to apples comparison, but legal experts should be weighing in here too. And to be clear, Clark did not weigh in on Trump’s tweet attacking the Times and promoting the Post.
Fast Company called the legal implications surrounding his Nordstrom attack “complicated.”
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, government officials cannot use their public office “for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.†The law further states that officials cannot use their position to give the appearance that the government “sanctions or endorses†the activities of a private party. In this case, “sanctions†can mean to penalize, much like the U.S. has placed sanctions on Iran. The catch here is that the law applies to every single government employee besides the president and the vice president. It was designed that way because, while other employees of the White House can step aside due to a conflict of interest, forcing the president to do so would leave a massive power vacuum.
That said, the regulations provide us with a clear guide as to the right and the wrong way to use the government’s power. It makes it clear that there is a distinction between using one’s capacity as a government official and acting as a private citizen.
So, while some might argue a president has the right to use the POTUS account for personal gain, or for sanctioning or endorsing actions, many should agree that it’s just not right.