John, are you meaning to infer that in the old days, when TV journalists were respected, they were despite all this extracurricular activity, so what's all the fuss?

Well,

How would being on "What's My Line" (where a panel of celebrities tries to guess a guest's profession by asking a series of questions) "compromise journalistic integrity or damage credibility"?

Or participating in "You Are There", in which historical events are recreated as if they occurred in the time of modern reporting, as an educational program?

I agree that participating in advertising is shaky, but Swayze's journalistic career actually ended pretty early on in that gig. And the relationship of advertising to TV content has changed drastically since the '50s.

The key part of the code is the consideration of whether outside activities "compromise journalistic integrity or damage credibility".

Lively and opinionated discussion about topics in the news makes entertaining TV, and well-informed opinion is certainly valuable, but it is incompatible with the type of news analysis that entails delving deeper behind a the headlines, pulling together a diversity of information sources, and composing an in-depth analysis that is meant to be objective. (And, given that, such analyses should be explicitly labeled as such and always given a byline, because, as compared with straight news reporting, they are more susceptible to the writer's bias.)

NPR had contracted Juan Williams as a news analyst. His activities (more than this once) on Fox compromised his credibility on NPR. I hope that he continues to provide well-informed opinion on Fox. (They need a bit more from his perspective.) It's too bad that the diversity of NPR's team is reduced as a result.

NPR does have a position that it calls "commentator", Andre Codrescu, and Frank deFord, are examples.

~ Becky in Tucson