Joyce HoffmannIt is ironic and perhaps illogical that journalists, whose role in a democratic system is to serve as guardians of the First Amendment, must relinquish some of those constitutional freedoms for the greater good of their profession.
The Virginian-Pilot's ethics committee last week upped the ante on the sacrifices newsroom staffers must face when it added bite to its Code of Ethics and Professionalism. The panel broadly defined a provision that forbids "participation in public demonstrations for political causes" to incorporate mere presence at a campaign event. The new language leaves no room for off-duty reporters to mutely observe political gatherings.
A central assumption in this and so many other media ethics codes is that the appearance of a conflict of interest is every bit as damaging as an actual conflict. The staffer who creates a conflict, according to this thinking, taints not only himself, but also risks tainting the newspaper.
The Pilot's ethics guidelines have long prohibited overt demonstrations of partisanship by any member of the newsroom staff. Campaign pins, bumper stickers, lawn signs and campaign contributions are all on the list of don'ts. Now, any staffer who wants to take his or her seventh grader to a rally to introduce the child to the political process is likely to be told the kid must go with a neighbor or friend.
Managing Editor Maria Carrillo insists that Pilot staffers who attend campaign events should be there only to cover them. As a journalist, "these are trade-offs you have to make." In her view, presence suggests partisanship, even as a silent observer. It raises a perception problem, she said, "and perception is the reality for many people."
Efforts to maintain editorial purity sometimes reach the extreme. For example, Leonard Downie, who will soon step down as The Washington Post's executive editor, stopped voting years ago to maintain an open and objective mind in supervising his newspaper's political coverage. Downie said he also "stopped having even private opinions about politics or issues."
In contrast, Kelly McBride, an ethics specialist at the Poynter Institute, advocates detached participation. There should be no distinction between being a citizen and being a journalist, she said: "I think there is a certain value to journalists in attending a political rally simply to observe, to gather a sense of the times."
That sentiment surrounded the key question confronting members of The Pilot ethics panel who tightened the rules, according to Pilot reporter Louis Hansen: How far does a reporter's right to curiosity extend, and where does the newspaper's rightful concern about the appearance of bias begin?
It appears that staffers closest to the political beats accept the need to allay any suspicion and willingly trade their freedoms for the "front-row seat" on history that comes with their jobs. Others, however, are inclined to oppose any restriction the newspaper imposes on their rights as a citizen.
Both Deirdre Fernandes, Virginia Beach city hall reporter, and military affairs reporter Kate Wiltrout note the parallels between the professional restraints they accept and those that government employees and members of the military must follow.
Fernandes questions the sweeping application of the policies, noting that holding a food writer to the standard makes little sense. But the impossibility of slicing and dicing the rules to exempt some staffers makes that universal application necessary. "You do give up some of your rights when you become a reporter and are entrusted with a responsibility to the public and the paper's readers," she said.
Wiltrout agrees. In an ideal world, journalists could attend political rallies as "curious, detached observers," she said. But given the eagerness in some quarters to discredit The Pilot and that "perceptions can be confused with reality," the world she inhabits is less that ideal.
"Overall, I don't believe that being restricted from strictly political events that I am not covering makes me a lesser citizen or journalist, even if it is an annoyance," Wiltrout said.
For those whose beats take them nowhere near political campaigns, however, the issues are more complicated. Pop culture writer Malcolm Venable says the foundation on which the policy rests is dubious - that objectivity is both possible and desirable. "Total objectivity is a self-delusional fantasy," he said.
In theory, at least, Venable said he laments his inability to be a "front line activist," but he made peace with that professional reality years ago.
I wholeheartedly embraced these rigid guidelines as a political reporter in the 1980s - including the decision to forgo participation in primary elections in Pennsylvania rather than declare my political affiliation. Today, they strike me as overly restrictive, given my sense of the obligations a democracy places on every citizen and my desire to experience first-hand the history of our times.
Joyce Hoffmann, the public editor, is an associate professor in the English Department at Old Dominion University. Reach her at (757) 446-2475 or public.editor@pilotonline.com.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
to bad to sad
And to think Sports writes can't show any emotion in the viewing both when viewing a sports event. Well for so long the views of how one feels is strongly shown by political writers. Now they have been "stripped down" of what they can do. GOOD maybe the stuff they spin will stop. Well proberly not. I remember what Forrest Gump said and that it in a nut shall.
marym, in part it was
"And remember, she thought everything that happened to them was part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy""
The Republican party spend millions of our taxdollars trying to find anything they could about Bill Clinton. His mistake with Monica was his own fault, but not all the dirt digging the R's worked so hard on. I respect Hiillary for standing by her husband, it was her own choice to make, and not the public's. Many people can't grasp the concept of trying to work out a marriage, divorce is the modern day way to go. Their relastionship is none of our business. If Obama becomes president, once again we will find the R's in desperation of looking for dirt, and they don't care how much it costs us. If the D's had treated Bush in the same manner he would have been impeached years ago.,
Media
When hasn't the media been biased? I'm 29 years old and can't answer that question. I've read books related to this topic that provide fantastic insight. If you care to check them out; read 'From Beirut to Jerusalem' by Thomas Friedman and 'Split Vision: The Portrayal of Arabs in the American Media' by Edmund Ghareeb. I'll admit the books are somewhat dated but provide insight into current media issues. These books deal solely with American/Israeli-Jewish/Arab relations (all of which seem to dominate the media anyways at any particular time.) I think it's important to realize, albeit not said, is that the paper's readership determines which direction the paper slants. History has shown us that and this has been admitted to by many editors and journalists. It takes real commitment to be objective, especially when journalists have been chastized and killed in the name of objectivity, but I don't think censoring journalists like this is a step in the right direction...
Complaints
I would bet the majority of complaints concerning posts actually are based on difference of opinions between the reader and the writers. It is common to see one particular group being insulted without valid reason, and another be censured when presenting valid reasoning. Flagging comments and suppressing thought in a subjective manner is an easily questionable process. You literally can see who is doing the flagging by following the regular posters and the subject being commented on.
If I were employed at VA Pilot...
If I were employed at VA Pilot, I would be 20-something and a liberal product of the MyFace Tube generation. I would have a meanlingless degree such as "communications". I would use the word "impact" when I mean to say "affect". I would use the word "affect" when I mean to say "effect".
I would write stories to fit my naive political agenda. Although I would be ignorant, I would also be arrogant. Although I would be incompetent, I would be confident. Although I would be unsophisticated, I would be supercilious.
I would also be unemployed when this newspaper is soon obsolete.
Gertz Point!
Whining about political coverage started long before George W.
For example, there was Hillary's famous "spin control" of everything that Bill did (is she the ultimate enabler, or what?). And remember, she thought everything that happened to them was part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" (but I don't fault her, because the R's love to accuse the D's of that same thing).
I am sure even Daddy Bush had some spin and whining going on in his administration. Ever since we have had 24/7 news, people are going for the small stuff to nitpick. Cheers, MGM
Outrageous
If I were employed by the Va Pilot, I would find this condition of my employment to be a dealbreaker. To be forbidden from participating in any visible aspect of the political process as a private citizen is way beyond the level of control your employer ought to have. I was in the MILITARY and, as long as I wasn't in uniform representing my service, I could participate however I'd like at political rallies and the like.
Does this ethics committee think that people don't believe journalists have political views? Nobody is completely objective -- that's not even human! All I ask the paper to do is present both sides of a story.
Restrictions
I can see where the attendance of a handful of VaPilot reporters at a political function would raise some eyebrows. It may lead me to ask myself can I receive an unbiased article from the VaPilot. In other words, leave the opinion pieces to the op-ed page. I could care less about the political leanings of your reporters I just want the truth and the "whole" story included in the article. For example, the Pilot reports on a candidate's policy proposals. I also expect an explanation on how the candidate is going to implement the policy and what consequences that particular policy will have in the future. My point is that many readers do not fully understand economics and how government works. They take your reporting at face value. This is why media is so powerful and when abused it can have severe consequences.
Newsroom Tightens Rules
As citizens and members of the Seven cities community, we should all be more than concerned about recent coincidental happenings at Portfolio Weekly and The Virginian-Pilot. They are "LINK"-ed.
At least, that's the "perception."
my observation of Freedom
My observation of Freedom of Speech started to decline with Bush as President who never wanted his words challenged. Even Mamma Bush got involved complaining that people should not pick on her son. Poor baby! We cannot allow our Freedom of Speech to become something of the past.
The Shrinking Arena of Ideas
I'm wondering how much this new policy is connected to the changes at Port Folio. Tom Robotham's departure is a loss for our entire community. It seems a real thought-provoking analytical perspective is considered "too liberal" which goes a long way to explaining the abysmal quality of what passes for news much less commentary in the US these days.
The essence of freedom of thought and of speech is that they can occur not only in your living room behind closed doors but in the public arena -- the town square as it were, and that includes the media as well as the workplace. Jefferson, Paine and Henry would be horrified by what is becoming of the freedoms they worked to establish -- freedoms many have sacrificed their lives to defend.
Fred
Maybe you can tell us why comments are delayed for hours and sometimes all day? I don't know of anything I have posted against pilot guidelines.
Not meaning to break the rules, but . . .
At the risk of further censorship, here again, for those able to consider implications, are those questions:
At what point should private employers be able to curtail the basic rights of citizens?
How much control over our lives away from work should our employers be able to exercise?
At what point does the power of those who hire override the constitutionally guaranteed rights of those employed?
Can corporations deny these rights to its workers but still endorse or contribute to political campaigns?
Should corporations become the only politically active entities, displacing actual citizens?
Might the interests of those displaced citizens be different than those of their employers?
Should we be a nation of slaves, in effect, forcefully depoliticized for the ability to survive economically?
Posting guidelines
We are cracking down on persistent violations of our posting guidelines. Many users are ignoring the 750-character limit. Others are posting multiple, consecutive, messages to circumvent the guidelines.
This is unfair to other posters who also want their opinions seen and read. We receive frequent complaints about regular posters who often dominate the discussion.
We have been removing all but the first message when a user attempts to post consecutively. We also have been editing posts to comply with the 750-character limit.
We recently updated our posting guidelines. Please take the time to read this blog post:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/06/new-and-updated-rules-story-comments
Fred Schecker Senior Producer
A Few Questions
To the Editor,
In response to the Sunday Editor's Report entitled, "Newsroom faces stricter rules on campaigns," the position taken by the Pilot leaves me with more questions than answers. I will agree that it is important for a news organ to be non-biased in its reporting, it is rarely so. It seems to me that the Pilot is perfectly capable of enforcing guidelines for reporters and reviewing articles to ensure that they are not slanted and that there is no conflict of interest. This can be done without stripping the basic rights of citizenship from its employees.
Another very real aspect of this issue is that the Pilot is not alone in this line of thinking. Many other non-media businesses may, and do, agree that their employees may risk giving the appearance of company bias that could make their clients uncomfortable if its employees voice political positions -- especially in public. Polit
Just the facts mam!
The "media" is so corrupted by narcissism a particular partisan bias is inconsequential.
Liberal and conservative are really anachronistic terms in today's
world of corporate oligarchs and megalomaniac plutocrats.
why didn't the news media
Why didn't the News Media think of this before they MADE Obama the darling of the Democratice party? The News Media MADE Obama, they had his face on the front page every time he sneezed. Day after day he was fron page news, and if it hadn't bewen for the media Obama would have been forgotten about and long gone form the campaigns.
new rules
Staff must have been leaning to the conservative side, and in direct conflict with the pilot's liberal leanings...