I hate to lend credibility to this thread by responding to it— but there is another point to make here:

The reporters are already asking the people involved in the foundation this crap— at least sometimes, sometimes they ask _worse_ people—  but a key difference is that when they just ask them normally they're getting their personal/company positions. If the community doesn't like what they say? "It's my Opinion. Fuck you." When people speak on behalf of the foundation there will at least be some accountability to the community of people who have chosen to become members— and pressure to hold a consistent, considered position, which is tempered somewhat from their personal and professional 'color'.  I think this moderating effect can be as improvement an important as the reduction in talking to the wrong people.