To The Editor
The
MSNBC.com “outed” Chronicle reporter Terry Judd for donating to a national political candidate. Now, Judd is the focus of an inquiry whether local reporters can support politicians and political platforms. Although I and local readers are with you, Terry – whatever your political stripe - the law’s against you.
Having worked for more than a decade with Mr. Judd, I don’t know his political leanings. The US Supreme Court, however, is pretty clear that his employer can enforce a no-endorsement zone when it comes to his politics. What his spouse might think is another matter.
News employers want their reporters to appear unbiased. Readers and viewers expect reporters to be unbiased in their political coverage. The US Supreme Court agreed. “Just as the newspaper's editors have the discretion to ensure that the news they print is--and is perceived to be--objective, balanced, and fair, so too do they have the right to ensure that the reporter whose byline is printed is--and is perceived to be--objective, balanced, and fair.” Nelson v McClatchey Newspapers, 1997.
But is that possible? If so, would we want such an individual working as a news professional?
Reporters I’ve known throughout the
Myth 1: Reporters are bias-free drones. In fact, there really is no capability of any intelligent human to remain totally bias-free once they begin processing the information they uncover. “Impartiality” is a myth.
Myth 2: Synthesis and emotion by reporters lead to conclusions and therefore are bad. In fact, what distinguishes the best reporters is their intellect and humanity with its emotion. Their ability to synthesize information as well as to feel the pain, joy, or beliefs, of the those whose stories they’re telling helps them convey that information or that emotion to the rest of us.
Does it really offend us if a reporter telling about African famine contributes to a charitable organization to assist or to a national candidate that reporter believes might make a difference? Is it really an ethical problem for a reporter in combat or other extreme situation to drop her camera and help a soldier or other victim? In
Myth 3: Reporters surrender their – and their spouses’ – First Amendment and other Constitutional rights to join the Fourth Estate. Since when do journalists become legal eunuchs in exchange for a paycheck? Since when must their spouses give up the right to publicly support candidates or causes because their reporter-spouse works for a news agency?
In my decades in journalism, I’ve known hundreds of professional newspaper and broadcast reporters. Most are thoughtful people who take politics seriously and wield their votes accordingly. I’ve never known any reporter – self-avowed Republicans, Democrats, etc. – whose work was tainted by his or her personal feelings. If the facts are presented in a fair and accurate manner, there is no problem.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is the only license an American journalist needs. Reporters and their families have the right to express themselves in their private lives, although the reporter still must adhere to their employer’s rules while at work. But can an employer demand a reporter not place a candidate sign in his or her front lawn? What about the rights of the reporter’s spouse to advertise support of a candidate?
Some newsrooms also demand their reporters to contribute minimal amounts of newspaper money to certain local candidates – about the amount of a fund-raising dinner – in order to remain on the candidate’s mail roster. Other news organizations demand financial reporters to purchase certain stocks in order to obtain timely reports from the company. Does this make the reporter a “shill” of that politician or company?
Anyone with a pen and paper can be a “journalist” by Constitutional standards, and there is no other litmus test for journalism. Times are changing, and media employers must recognize a reporter’s right to self-expression on his own time.
