(updated below: including responses from MSNBC executives)

Hillary Clinton's name on MSNBC's Meet the Press homepage (she spoke with Tim Russert yesterday) is currently hyperlinked directly to Clinton's campaign website, where visitors are prominently encouraged to "Drive Hillary's campaign to victory by donating today."

There is no contextual reason for this. The link, for example, is not an allusion to an aspect of her campaign's web presence or fundraising strategies. Rather, it's merely her name in the headline (see "Sen. Hillary Clinton" below, the hyperlink in question, under "Sunday, Jan. 13."):



Specifically, the "Sen. Hillary Clinton" link in the above headline takes you here:

Looking back at appearances of other 2008 presidential candidates, I've found no evidence that any of them has received the same treatment from Meet the Press on MSNBC's website, including her two closest rivals for the nomination, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

So the question remains: Why is MSNBC driving their visitors to contribute to Hillary Clinton's campaign?

Certainly this is a breach of the most basic journalistic ethics or a huge gaffe. Either way, the result is the same.



(Stay tuned...)

UPDATE: Day two. This link remains intake. Keep in mind that according to MSNBC's About section to Advertisers: "On average, msnbc.com delivers well over a billion page views per month to more than 85 million computers." So how many tens or hundreds of thousands of visitors has MSNBC/Meet the Press already driven to Clinton's site, where they are prominently encouraged to donate and support her campaign? Meanwhile, MSNBC is in the middle of appealing a judge's decision yesterday to allow Congressman Kucinich to attend its debate.

How's that for fair and balanced?

UPDATE II: I have since been in contact with Randy Stearns, Deputy Editor, News, for msnbc.com and Jim Ray, a concepts producer at msnbc.com, and am in the process of further inquiring about aspects of this matter. On its face, it does appear that Meet the Press on msnbc.com has given similar treatment to prior candidates on its website. But whether it was exactly the same is difficult to confirm because I am told by Stearns and Ray that those original pages no longer exist. As Mr. Ray explained to me, there is a grid used on the MTP msnbc.com page that swaps out information when updated. Yet while Ray was able to locate what he claims is the original grid (though not the original formatting) for John McCain's appearance, showing his name similarly linked to his campaign website, for some reason, this is the only one to which Ray says he has access. Mr. Stearns sent me the archived links of the candidates' MTP appearances (inexplicably buried on msnbc.com - more on that later), which include a link to each candidate's website (here's an example) but not in the prominent and misleading fashion as the current "Sen. Hillary Clinton" headline link, which causes, as some readers have noted, for visitors to click on her name at the top thinking it will take them to the beginning of the MTP interview rather than her campaign website. In other words, as in the examples of archived candidate interviews sent by Stearns, in which the candidates campaign links are clearly labeled "Candidate site," the link in question, the current Clinton link, is handled in a wholly different manner, both prominent and unlabeled.

Moreover, questions remain, including those pertaining to the necessity of having access to original information (which led me to report on this in the first place and others to come to the same conclusion, i.e., no evidence available at msnbc.com showed otherwise); having clear access to even altered archived information (it's currently buried); and their defense that they have "no control" over what candidates put on their sites (on the surface that might sound logical; contextually, it's not). I sent Mr. Stearns and Mr. Ray follow-up questions and will report back after I receive their replies.

UPDATE III: I sent the following email to Randy Stearns, Deputy Editor, News, for msnbc.com:

Randy, thanks for getting back to me. I want to post a follow-up/correction, but there are still some questions left unanswered for me.



1) In the comments section, you said, "Mitt Romney, Barak Obama, Ron Paul, John McCain and Mike Huckabee have all been given the same treatment when those candidates appeared on "Meet the Press." As in those cases, the links should not be construed as implying any kind of endorsement of the candidates, nor can "Meet the Press" or msbc.co m control how those candidates organize their sites, (all of which feature fund-raising pitches, of course)."



But if a candidate's campaign is aware it will receive such a link (and it must be), then shouldn't it be obvious that the campaign will make sure its homepage, at least for that time frame, is set up as a de facto donation page? Or, in other cases, that the campaign's regular homepage is heavily weighted for donations, as Clinton's is right now (I'm not sure if her camp altered it for her MTP appearance)?



In either scenario, however, and in this context, isn't MTP/MSNBC.com, for all intents and purposes, wittingly or unwittingly (which is worse?) driving their visitors to de facto donation pages. So your defense claiming to have "no control" over what candidates put on their websites doesn't hold water contextually. If you have no control over what campaigns put up, which I, of course, agree you don't, then wouldn't the more ethical approach be to refrain from linking to their sites in such cases? But you can't have it both ways. You can't link there, claiming ignorance that your visitors will be hit with prominent requests to donate and then turn around and say you have no control over what campaigns put on their websites. Right?



2) By not archiving the original pages as they were, do you understand that your visitors (which included me in this case and others who looked into it) are not given a clear representation as to how MTP on msnbc.com covered past candidate interviews? Shouldn't there be a way to archive the original web representations of those interviews?



3) Also, why are the current web representations of those interviews, in which candidates' websites are linked, buried on your website? (Note: I'm not suggesting it's done maliciously; this is simply a question of usability and allowing your visitors clear access to original information.)



Again, thanks for your time in addressing these questions.



Sincerely,

Brad Jacobson



--

MediaBloodhound

http://mediabloodhound.com

Here is the email response I received from Mr. Stearns:

You make some fair points that we will take into consideration and share w/ our colleagues at Meet the Press.

OK, not the most in-depth response. But if this inquiry actually spurs msnbc.com to provide clearer information to visitors on its Meet the Press page, I welcome the brevity.

I also sent an email to Jim Ray, a concepts producer at msnbc.com, with whom I'd also corresponded in the comments section here. Mr. Ray took a decidedly more loquacious approach (my questions in black; his responses in blue):

Dear Mr. Ray,



I want to post a follow-up/correction, but there are still some questions left unanswered for me.



1) In the comments section you said: "Oh, also, I wanted to say that you bring up an excellent point about the fact that the text is completely lacking in context - I wouldn't necessarily expect a candidate's name to link directly to her campaign site. I'll work on getting that fixed."



As a "concepts producer at msnbc.com, which hosts content for Meet the Press," why wouldn't you "expect a candidate's name to link directly to her campaign site," to such a degree that you said you'd "work on getting that fixed"? Initially, you seemed as surprised as I was about this. As someone who hosts MTP on msnbc.com, isn't that kind of your domain? Or am I totally missing something?



>> Let me clarify exactly what it is that I do at msnbc.com – my title is “editorial concepts producer,” which is sort of a think-tank kind of a role. While I used to be very involved in content and production, I now deal almost solely with conceptual design,particularly as it relates to news. So, while I have access to to our CMS, it’s very much not my job to deal with the day to day production of the site. I brought up the issue with the MTP folks, who are ultimately responsible for the content of that page. I point this out not because I want to absolve myself of any blame, simply by way of explanation.



2) I understand your grid explanation. But by not archiving the original pages as they were, do you understand that your visitors (which included me in this case and others who looked into it) are not given a clear representation as to how MTP on msnbc.com covered past candidate interviews? Even with the grid explanation, shouldn't there be a way to archive the original web representations of those interviews? Also, why are the current web representations of those interviews, in which candidates' websites are linked, buried on your website? (Note: I'm not suggesting it's done maliciously; this is simply a question of usability and allowing your visitors clear access to original information.)



>> I really don’t have a good answer for you. We’re a news organization, the content of our cover and fronts is meant to reflect the news as it happens, not serve as a definitive archive of events. You may disagree with this approach, that’s certainly your right, but we frankly don’t have the resources to maintain an archive of every front every time they change. The point of that space is to act as a promotion to the actual archived content, in the form or written stories, multimedia pieces or video.



3) Finally, on the issue of links to homepages in which donation requests are prominent, you said, "As has been stated by myself and several colleagues at this point, we are linking to the candidate homepage, not directly to a donation page or in any way encouraging readers to donate to candidates. We tend to think that our readers are actually smart enough to figure out that you don't have to click on the 'donate' button just to get information." Prior to that you also note: "Clinton, like every presidential candidate running right now, has a rather prominent 'donate here' image on her homepage, presumably to encourage supporters to donate to her campaign. This doesn't mean that Meet the Press or msnbc.com is encouraging our readers to donate to the Clinton campaign, we're simply linking to her official site. As best I can figure, a link is by no means an endorsement, nor should it be implied as such."



But if a candidate's campaign either requests a link prior to appearing on MTP or is aware that they will receive such a link without requesting it, then shouldn't it be obvious that the campaign will make sure its homepage, at least for that time frame (i.e. see McCain link in your grid example and then go to his current homepage) is set up as a de facto donation page? Or in other cases, it might just be that the campaign's regular homepage is heavily weighted to donate, as Clinton's is right now (I'm not sure if her camp altered it for her MTP appearance).



>> First of all, no candidate has ever requested a link to their homepage that I’m aware of and we are not in the business of granting such requests even if they did. Very simply, we link to candidate sites as a way to provide more information to our readers, in much the same way that we would link to a corporate homepage in a story about that company. As I’ve said, a link is not an endorsement of any kind.



In either scenario, however, and in this context, isn't MTP/MSNBC.com, for all intents and purposes, wittingly or unwittingly (which is worse?) driving their visitors to de facto donation pages. So a defense claiming to have "no control" over what candidates put on their websites doesn't hold water contextually. If you guys have no control over what campaigns put up, which I, of course, agree you don't, then wouldn't the more ethical approach be to not link to their sites in such cases? You can't have it both ways; you can't link there, claiming ignorance that your visitors will be hit with prominent requests to donate and then turn around and say you have no control over what campaigns put on their websites. Right?



>> I think I’ve been clear that I disagree with your basic premise here. Forgive me, Brad, but you seem to be implying some level of collusion that, frankly, has never existed and is borderline conspiratorial. Yes, we do link to every candidate’s homepage at various places on the site – in our candidate comparison matrices, multimedia packages, candidate profiles. Yes, most candidates have donation links prominent on those homepages. Should we simply not link to their official site because a candidate is asking for donations? Is that serving our readers?



Not so long ago, media watchdog bloggers were accusing “big media” of “not getting it” because many mainstream media sites refused to link offsite. You seem to be saying that by linking to the official campaign site that we’re somehow intentionally confusing our readers. Perhaps I’ve just grossly misunderstood your argument, but I fail to see how linking offsite to a page that is clearly not affiliated with MSNBC is an ethical breach. You’ve also set up something of a false dichotomy with your question about wanting to have it both ways – we’re not “claiming ignorance” about the fact that candidates put donations links on their homepages, we’re saying that linking to a candidate’s official site isn’t a tacit endorsement and is by no means an encouragement to donate to a campaign. If we had such powerful means of persuasion, I guarantee you that our advertisements would be far more lucrative.



Furthermore, your original post headline continues to be grossly misleading. No page on msnbc.com encourages any reader to donate to any campaign. When you land on the campaign website, you still have to click through to yet another page to donate, something that we are unable to force our users to do (I hear that Microsoft is working on that technology though [joke. Ha.]). Here’s a hypothetical for you: let’s say a story on msnbc.com linked to a weblog about political media bloggers and on that page was a link to, oh, I don’t know, mediabloodhounds.com and on that page is a button that says “this is a one-man operation that could really use your donations” with a “make a donation” button. Would you consider that link to be an endorsement from msnbc.com? Would you run the headline “MSNBC driving visitors to donate to media watchdog group” ? I should hope not.



At this point, I’m afraid that we’re going to have to agree to disagree about this particular matter. You clearly feel that we have crossed some ethical line in the sand, my colleagues and I clearly disagree. I appreciate your attention to this matter and would really appreciate that you clarify to your readers that we are not in the business of supporting particular political candidates or encouraging our readers to donate to political campaigns. Also, I’d really appreciate if you’d turn your watchful eye to other media organizations that have the temerity to link to official candidate homepages, such as the nation’s paper of record, here: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/candidates/index.html



Best,



Jim

Yes, I guess Mr. Ray and I will have to agree to disagree, though not because he has sufficiently addressed my concerns. Mr. Stearns, in one sentence, did a better job of that. Ray's assertion that "You clearly feel we have crossed some ethical line in the sand, my colleagues and I clearly disagree" not only misrepresents what contextually is irksome about the Clinton link (and any others like it in the past that may have existed at one time), but also, in light of Stearns' response, Ray's colleagues don't necessarily "clearly disagree." In fact, to reiterate, Stearns said, "You make some fair points that we will take into consideration and share w/our colleagues at Meet the Press."

Stearns appears to grasp what I'm getting at - not that I'm either claiming MSNBC is specifically telling its visitors in clear directional links and text to "Donate to Hillary" or to another candidate, or that I'm asserting no candidate's link should appear on MSNBC. That's just silly. Rather, as is, in the context of the information provided - an unlabeled hyperlinked candidate's name in a Meet the Press headline - is misleadingly driving visitors to a de facto donation page. That is inarguable.

You say, "Very simply, we link to candidate sites as a way to provide more information to our readers, in much the same way that we would link to a corporate homepage in a story about that company." But my point is that the link in question - I'm not referring to those in msnbc.com's "candidate comparison, matrices, multimedia packages, candidate profiles," etc. - is not linked in a way a corporate homepage might be in a story about a company. "Sen. Hillary Clinton," the link in question, is part of the headline. It is not text in the story (or, in this case, interview) or labeled as her campaign site. A headline implies the story at hand. This is why at least some visitors clicked on that thinking it would anchor link them down to the beginning of the interview. It is misleading. And I am calling out the result of misleading your visitors in this particular case. Whether it was intentional or not - what Mr. Ray can't seem to get beyond in his somewhat overly defensive stance - is really beside the point. Whatever the case, the result is the same.

Stearns also seems to understand that this whole matter, the inspiration for my inquiry, also comes down to the accessibility of information. If I, and others, were able to access on msnbc.com examples of prior candidates being treated in the exact same way, I would've at least been able to confirm that other candidates were linked as such in the past. Though I would've still maintained that such linking - in this particular context - is misleading, it wouldn't have appeared as inequitable as it initially did.