Full Version: Journalist Contributions to Political Campaigns
I read an article recently and then watched coverage of the subject on FOX News Watch this weekend regarding journalist who've contributed to political campaigns.
I thought back to a post of mine elsewhere on these boards, where I cited admissions from liberal journalists. Here are a couple of examples:
"There is no such thing as objective reporting...I've become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive mission." — Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.
"As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy." — Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal Journal column.
Questions for debate:
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
QUOTE
In some Bay Area newsrooms, a journalist who writes a check for a political candidate may get a pat on the back for being an active citizen. In others, the journalist may be reprimanded for creating a perception that the news is biased.
<snip>
One prominent journalism ethicist said the problem is that the perception of a conflict of interest harms a news organization's ability to gather news.
"Two thousand years of ethical philosophy on this topic boil down to this: Do your job and don't cause unjustified harm," said Deni Elliott, the Poynter-Jamison chair in media ethics at University of South Florida. "Being able to do one's job involves a certain amount of professional credibility."
<snip>
Mr. Diaz, the editorial page editor, said that although there is a strict separation between the editorial functions of journalists in the newsroom and those who work on the editorial page, opinion writers are not exempt from the paper's conflict-of-interest policies.
"Even though we on the editorial page have opinions, we think we are subject to the same standards as every other journalist," he said. "Maybe it's not objectivity we're aiming for here, but independence. You can't do that if you're giving political contributions."
<snip>
One prominent journalism ethicist said the problem is that the perception of a conflict of interest harms a news organization's ability to gather news.
"Two thousand years of ethical philosophy on this topic boil down to this: Do your job and don't cause unjustified harm," said Deni Elliott, the Poynter-Jamison chair in media ethics at University of South Florida. "Being able to do one's job involves a certain amount of professional credibility."
<snip>
Mr. Diaz, the editorial page editor, said that although there is a strict separation between the editorial functions of journalists in the newsroom and those who work on the editorial page, opinion writers are not exempt from the paper's conflict-of-interest policies.
"Even though we on the editorial page have opinions, we think we are subject to the same standards as every other journalist," he said. "Maybe it's not objectivity we're aiming for here, but independence. You can't do that if you're giving political contributions."
I thought back to a post of mine elsewhere on these boards, where I cited admissions from liberal journalists. Here are a couple of examples:
"There is no such thing as objective reporting...I've become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive mission." — Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.
"As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy." — Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal Journal column.
Questions for debate:
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
I can guess the direction this thread is going to take. I'll try to get my remarks in before they get there.
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
This journalist doesn't make campaign contributions, but then I don't make the kind of bank that allows me to. If I did however, I'd have no second thoughts about doing so. Why should I? I'm a citizen of the United States. I have political views. I vote. I don't recall any Journalism school classes that said if you cover politicians, you can't contribute to their campaigns.
It's an individual choice. Not a mandate or part of some canon of ethics.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Sure. To the extent that any of us can hold separate and conflicting views on an issue. Journalists are not imbued with special powers of objectivity. They struggle with their passions and hatreds and occasionally they slip.
The question itself is based on a false premise. If you're a reporter you're not a advocate. Period. I was an editor and I read the copy of reporters all the time. When it crosses the line from straight reporting of the facts to active advocacy--pro or con---out comes the BIG RED PENCIL and you mark up the reporter's copy until it looks like it's bleeding out. The Op-Ed (opinion/editorial) page of a newspaper is where we do our advocacy thank you very much.
I do both straight news reporting and I write columns. I prefer writing columns, but when I'm doing the news I'm a reporter. When I'm giving my opinion, I'm a columnist. And I don't confuse the two jobs.
This will come to a surprise to the very opinionated minds of America's Debate, but it's HARD to find reporters who want to become columnists or editorial writers. Many of them are reluctant to give their opinion and shy away from doing so. Last summer I attended a workshop held by the National Conference of Editorial Writers to recruit and train minority journalists to become editorial writers
and columnists. Most reporters have their personal passions and most are professional enough to know where they have to draw the line. When they forget any editor worthy of the title will step in to do it for them.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
This is the same question as the first one phrased only slightly different. Anyway, here's my answer: No. Any reporter that has reached into their pocket and given it to Candidate X has made a tacit endorsement of Candidate XI, the same as any of us would by doing so.
There have been Supreme Court justices who were so afraid of showing bias or preference that they gave up voting entirely while they were on the High Court. That is taking impartiality to the extreme for me, but I understand the mindset behind it.
People take journalists at their word that they can totally divorce themselves of an opinion or bias and take great satisfaction when they can say "GOTCHA" and catch one slipping. I would not be so strict as to fine or fire journalists who contribute to a candidate, but I would require them to disclose the contribution.
Doctors always know what's right for a patient. Lawyers are always ethical and are only motivated by justice, not money. Politicians don't lie and follow the wishes of the voters. The policeman is always your friend and a priest or minister is always a person of the highest moral character. How many of these presumptions have proven to be false with depressing frequency?
Yet everyone still wants to hold journalists to standards they would find totally unrealistic for themselves. Where's the consistency?
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
This journalist doesn't make campaign contributions, but then I don't make the kind of bank that allows me to. If I did however, I'd have no second thoughts about doing so. Why should I? I'm a citizen of the United States. I have political views. I vote. I don't recall any Journalism school classes that said if you cover politicians, you can't contribute to their campaigns.
It's an individual choice. Not a mandate or part of some canon of ethics.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Sure. To the extent that any of us can hold separate and conflicting views on an issue. Journalists are not imbued with special powers of objectivity. They struggle with their passions and hatreds and occasionally they slip.
The question itself is based on a false premise. If you're a reporter you're not a advocate. Period. I was an editor and I read the copy of reporters all the time. When it crosses the line from straight reporting of the facts to active advocacy--pro or con---out comes the BIG RED PENCIL and you mark up the reporter's copy until it looks like it's bleeding out. The Op-Ed (opinion/editorial) page of a newspaper is where we do our advocacy thank you very much.
I do both straight news reporting and I write columns. I prefer writing columns, but when I'm doing the news I'm a reporter. When I'm giving my opinion, I'm a columnist. And I don't confuse the two jobs.
This will come to a surprise to the very opinionated minds of America's Debate, but it's HARD to find reporters who want to become columnists or editorial writers. Many of them are reluctant to give their opinion and shy away from doing so. Last summer I attended a workshop held by the National Conference of Editorial Writers to recruit and train minority journalists to become editorial writers
and columnists. Most reporters have their personal passions and most are professional enough to know where they have to draw the line. When they forget any editor worthy of the title will step in to do it for them.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
This is the same question as the first one phrased only slightly different. Anyway, here's my answer: No. Any reporter that has reached into their pocket and given it to Candidate X has made a tacit endorsement of Candidate XI, the same as any of us would by doing so.
There have been Supreme Court justices who were so afraid of showing bias or preference that they gave up voting entirely while they were on the High Court. That is taking impartiality to the extreme for me, but I understand the mindset behind it.
People take journalists at their word that they can totally divorce themselves of an opinion or bias and take great satisfaction when they can say "GOTCHA" and catch one slipping. I would not be so strict as to fine or fire journalists who contribute to a candidate, but I would require them to disclose the contribution.
Doctors always know what's right for a patient. Lawyers are always ethical and are only motivated by justice, not money. Politicians don't lie and follow the wishes of the voters. The policeman is always your friend and a priest or minister is always a person of the highest moral character. How many of these presumptions have proven to be false with depressing frequency?
Yet everyone still wants to hold journalists to standards they would find totally unrealistic for themselves. Where's the consistency?
How ironic to find the topic being discussed on Fox News, whose led by Roger Ailes, media consultant to both Presidents Nixon and Reagan and also a prime mover in Bush I's campaign.
So do we worry about journalistic activism or the activism at the top of the food chain? I'd worry more about the top of the food chain, since they can create an entire NETWORK of advocates for a particular point of view without even worrying about whether they contribute to one campaign or another.
So do we worry about journalistic activism or the activism at the top of the food chain? I'd worry more about the top of the food chain, since they can create an entire NETWORK of advocates for a particular point of view without even worrying about whether they contribute to one campaign or another.
Actually amf, the show is FOX News Watch and it's panel is made up of two conservatives and two liberals, all self proclaimed. In addition, as a disclaimer, Eric Burns, the host, made it known that Roger Ailes has contributed to campaigns, including Bush and the Kerry and Ted Kennedy senatorial campaign.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Jul 25 2004, 02:27 PM)
Actually amf, the show is FOX News Watch and it's panel is made up of two conservatives and two liberals, all self proclaimed. In addition, as a disclaimer, Eric Burns, the host, made it known that Roger Ailes has contributed to campaigns, including Bush and the Kerry and Ted Kennedy senatorial campaign.
Great! Do they say that at the top of each and every show on FOX News? Or CNN for that matter?
Reason I ask is it seems that your question was about activism in journalism and whether contributing to a campaign might bias a reporter's view and I think that the question also needs to apply not only to the reporters, but also at the top of the food chain where the journalistic standards are designed and imposed/enforced. Wouldn't want journalists to take the heat for a corporate decision to bias the reporting.
You are welcome to start a thread about whether journalist are required to be biased towards their owner's political beliefs. In the meantime:
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Jul 25 2004, 11:12 PM)
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Well, I don't think they should - some of them might not want to, or might not support any politicians.
Semantics aside, I think the safest bet would be to permit them to do so, hold their journalistic efforts to high editorial standards, and qualify their commentary by disclosing donations or other direct support in their columns. Sort of like nighttimer says (my respect for this guy just goes up & up 
)Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate??
Yes, I do. I don't think that they always ARE, but I certainly think it is possible. George Orwell was one of the harshest critics of the weaknesses and excesses of socialism, but he was always a socialist.
Often, the best qualified person to give an informed critique of a subject is someone close to it. Random example: if I want to know the weaknesses of the theory of evolution, a creationist will start from a hostile standpoint, so may not be the best source. A completely objective person will probably not understand all the subtleties, since to be completely objective one would have to start out knowing nothing about the subject. An evolutionary scientist would probably be the best person to ask about the holes in evolutionary theory. And a journalist who at least appears sympathetic to and knowledgeable of those theories will probably be the person such a scientist would find it easiest to talk to sensibly, without getting hostile or defensive.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Yes, for the same reasons and with the same qualifications. Journalists are no more or less human than anyone else, and have the advantage that they have never really been put on a pedestal where their revealed humanity comes as a disappointment to anyone (unlike, say, doctors).
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Jul 25 2004, 09:44 AM)
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
I say yes, let journalists make contributions, but disclose them readily, on website and once or twice per year in the actual publication as appropriate.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Nope. Even if they write an unbiased story, like I'm sure Nighttimer does, the story selection, editing, and title copy can easily be biased down the line by someone else that has a point of view. Here is an example using title copy as an illustration. 9/11 findings on the newswires July 22, 2004. My emphasis added.
AP vs. Reuters
QUOTE
"Sept. 11 Panel Says Government Faiures Not to Blame for Attacks"--headline, Associated Press, July 22
"9/11 Inquiry Damns US Government"--headline, Reuters, July 22---
------
"Leaders Not Blamed in 9/11 Report"--headline, Associated Press, July 22
"9/11 Panel Point to Bush and Clinton Failings"--headline, Reuters, July 22
"9/11 Inquiry Damns US Government"--headline, Reuters, July 22---
------
"Leaders Not Blamed in 9/11 Report"--headline, Associated Press, July 22
"9/11 Panel Point to Bush and Clinton Failings"--headline, Reuters, July 22
Same story, same content, but the titles take you in a completely different direction. One blames the government, but the other exonerates it.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
This is a tough one. I still say no. I just looked up donations for the 2004 election cycle at opensecrets.org, and the print media gives primarily to democrats, and TV stations give mostly to republicans (clear channel, etc.)
2004 donations
As for long term trends, predictably "the media" gives mostly to democrats, more than 2:1 vs. republicans over the past 14 years. total media donations - long term trends
Do I think that journalists can be objective? Probably in isolation. However, the real world dictates that there is an environment where certain (liberal) beliefs are more acceptable, and more likely to see the light of day, whether in print, electronically, whatever. This seems to be the gist of the anti-Fox News argument--it's a conservative station, so conservative views are given more prominence. I would say that the converse is true of the traditional 'liberal' media - New York Times, SF Chronicle, LA Times, etc.
(massive editing due to typos, wrong conclusions from my link, you name it. Oops.)
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Kind of going to handle all three of these at once. I don't think a journalist, and by that I mean a person that deals in hard news stories as opposed to columns and the like, should be making donations to political campaigns. I think it damages their credibility, fairly or not. When it comes to journalism, credibility is everything because no matter how diligent and fair one is in researching a story, if nobody believes it it's worthless.
I would offer up an example from my local newspaper, The Los Angeles Times. Their political "analyst" is Ron Brownstein who also frequently writes editorial columns and is very liberal. That's fine, he has the right to be wrong, but when I read his byline, I automatically think "editorial" even though it may be labeled as "political analysis". Well, it's liberal analysis to be sure and it really loses a lot in the way of any credibility with me as fair or objective. That may be unfair to Mr Brownstein, but it's kind of the tent he himself has pitched.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Kind of going to handle all three of these at once. I don't think a journalist, and by that I mean a person that deals in hard news stories as opposed to columns and the like, should be making donations to political campaigns. I think it damages their credibility, fairly or not. When it comes to journalism, credibility is everything because no matter how diligent and fair one is in researching a story, if nobody believes it it's worthless.
I would offer up an example from my local newspaper, The Los Angeles Times. Their political "analyst" is Ron Brownstein who also frequently writes editorial columns and is very liberal. That's fine, he has the right to be wrong, but when I read his byline, I automatically think "editorial" even though it may be labeled as "political analysis". Well, it's liberal analysis to be sure and it really loses a lot in the way of any credibility with me as fair or objective. That may be unfair to Mr Brownstein, but it's kind of the tent he himself has pitched.
QUOTE
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
QUOTE
Kind of going to handle all three of these at once. I don't think a journalist, and by that I mean a person that deals in hard news stories as opposed to columns and the like, should be making donations to political campaigns. I think it damages their credibility, fairly or not. When it comes to journalism, credibility is everything because no matter how diligent and fair one is in researching a story, if nobody believes it it's worthless.
Im not sure what journalists make yearly but they can probably only make minimal contributions to a candidate they support, if they even bother, since they see so much in the field that I would suspect they have few strong affinities. I think its well within their right to do so as american citizens. ( how would we regulate that, what law would be appropriate to ban it?)
There is no possible way that one can proclaim it is unethical for any citizen to contribute when everyone else is allowed to do so.
QUOTE
I read an article recently and then watched coverage of the subject on FOX News Watch this weekend regarding journalist who've contributed to political campaigns.
This is particularily Sweeeeettt, coming from' FOX News Watch'. Lest I laugh at the fingerpointing:
Following Aquillas reasoning , it would certainely damage Fox News credibility that Rupert Murdoch has personally contributed $35,000 dollars to Republicans, $25,000 of it to the Republican National Committe in this year so far. His wife Wendi who has been pivotal to leading Fox in China, but often lists herself as a homemaker when she contributes has given 10,000 that I can see in quik math. Thats a healthy chunk of cash between them. Does that damage Fox credibility? (Imagine having $45,000 to personally contribute to a campaign.)
Heres a search engine for your favorite names, you can see just what theyve given. http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/...ml.exe?MBF=NAME
I dont think the argument of looking from the top down is off topic at all. It gives a clear view of 'who is supporting who' in real (big) cash terms, not picking on private citizens rights to support the candidate of their choice despite the job they do or who their company gives to. Can we really say that a journalist who gives $500 has so much more at stake in manipulating the public as the head of the news corp giving $35,000 or more?
As far as non-bias in news stories, Im sure that whether you give money or not you have a bias, unless you are a fence sitter. Its up to journalists, (trained to write news) to write good objective stories as well as they can and editors to weed out any irrelevance and make sure sources are viable. There is a lot at stake in making mistakes or false claims--or being seen as really bias, like the L.A. Times, which does not appear to have the least problem with.
I think believing that Joe piddly contributor journalist is a mass manipulator that should not be allowed to make contributions, (or should declare them, beyond what any citizen is accountable to do) is such a stretch and another attempt to polarize, or not read based on bias. Do we need qualifiers? Or have we lost the ability of deductive reasoning? As well, why would he/she as a citizen be penalized when the Corp above is getting the political ear by the tens of thousands of $$? The suggestion itself is against personal freedoms and right of expression by the people.
How about, at the opening of every Fox News edition they have a headliner that reads, "Rupert Murdoch and wife Wendi Murdoch, heads of Fox Entertainment, here and in China- have contributed $45,000 to Republican campaigns in the last 6 months"?
That might certainely clarify things for Mr and Mrs Smith across the country.
Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Why or why not?
Yes. It's their right to free speech as protected under the First Amendment. Just because one practices a particular occupation does not mean that one loses Constitutional guarantees.
However, it is a bit tacky.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Hard to say. I would hope so, and I think so. I truly believe that the most qualified reporters can remove themselves from their emotional attachment to a particular situation and provide an unbiased, clear opinion.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Yes. I actively support and donate to the John Kerry campaign, however I can still be critical of him. I can also find things about Bush that I like. I just put myself in the right state of mind. I think good reporters, as highly trained as they are, have the ability to remove their emotional biases and report objectively.
Or, the other option is....they keep on saying the media is liberal. Well, maybe the media IS liberal, and all of these reporters are just correct?
Yes. It's their right to free speech as protected under the First Amendment. Just because one practices a particular occupation does not mean that one loses Constitutional guarantees.
However, it is a bit tacky.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate?
Hard to say. I would hope so, and I think so. I truly believe that the most qualified reporters can remove themselves from their emotional attachment to a particular situation and provide an unbiased, clear opinion.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign?
Yes. I actively support and donate to the John Kerry campaign, however I can still be critical of him. I can also find things about Bush that I like. I just put myself in the right state of mind. I think good reporters, as highly trained as they are, have the ability to remove their emotional biases and report objectively.
Or, the other option is....they keep on saying the media is liberal. Well, maybe the media IS liberal, and all of these reporters are just correct?
Ok, I'm a retired local TV producer. Here's the way it worked in real life (at least in my shop):
You know your people, and you know if they've got a heavy bias against the public official (or candidate) in question. In fact, reporters will usually TELL you that they've got a personal/political problem with old Mayor So-and-so (or whoever). Why? Because if I catch a reporter out in purposely distorting the facts, he's halfway out the door just as fast as you can say, "We need to talk, pal, go get your shop steward."
It's in his interest to let me know what's what from the beginning. In fact, reporters often hand over their scripts to colleagues and ask for a read because, "This guy is such a jerk, I can't tell if I'm being fair... read it and let me know what you think." That's before it even gets to my desk. When it gets to me, I try to take into account the possible bias and ask alot of questions to see that we're reporting honestly-- or as honestly as we can.
I worked for Clear Channel at one time, as well as other less-politically plugged-in corps. I never got leaned on to slant a story. I DID get asked some close questions by various News Directors to see that we were being balanced. Sometimes you'd get told, "Hey, put one more SOT [sound bite] in the piece from So-and-so's opponent, to even it up." We literally counted the number of SOTs from each side, especially over a hotly contested issue. That is normal in TV news and it's as it should be. No one wants to lose half the audience over politics, the numbers are too precious.
Now, Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Very gray area, but probably not, if only because of possible appearance of bias.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate? Can somebody please sharpen a stake and drive into the heart of the word 'objective?' No journalism is objective. It can't be. It's not even attempted. It's not even taught in J-school as an ideal. Journalists are not priests or lawyers; they do not swear fealty to a higher power that is Objectivity. You do everything you can to be fair. Sorry, but that's all you get.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign? Substituting 'fair' for objective, I'd say yes. But he or she has to really work at it. Why make the job harder? If I had a reporter 'on the bus' and discovered he or she had made a contribution, he or she would lose the beat-- the station doesn't need the hassle over the appearance of bias. If I found out the reporter failed to tell me about the contribution, he or she is fired, period, today. Is that legal? Nope. Welcome to Major League Baseball.
I don't think I ran my shop on any higher plane of morality than most do. It's how the game is played. The business is very small, and if you get a rep that you pimped for some candidate, you don't work anymore.
You know your people, and you know if they've got a heavy bias against the public official (or candidate) in question. In fact, reporters will usually TELL you that they've got a personal/political problem with old Mayor So-and-so (or whoever). Why? Because if I catch a reporter out in purposely distorting the facts, he's halfway out the door just as fast as you can say, "We need to talk, pal, go get your shop steward."
It's in his interest to let me know what's what from the beginning. In fact, reporters often hand over their scripts to colleagues and ask for a read because, "This guy is such a jerk, I can't tell if I'm being fair... read it and let me know what you think." That's before it even gets to my desk. When it gets to me, I try to take into account the possible bias and ask alot of questions to see that we're reporting honestly-- or as honestly as we can.
I worked for Clear Channel at one time, as well as other less-politically plugged-in corps. I never got leaned on to slant a story. I DID get asked some close questions by various News Directors to see that we were being balanced. Sometimes you'd get told, "Hey, put one more SOT [sound bite] in the piece from So-and-so's opponent, to even it up." We literally counted the number of SOTs from each side, especially over a hotly contested issue. That is normal in TV news and it's as it should be. No one wants to lose half the audience over politics, the numbers are too precious.
Now, Should journalists be making campaign contributions to political candidates, in particular presidential candidates? Very gray area, but probably not, if only because of possible appearance of bias.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on an issue of which they are an advocate? Can somebody please sharpen a stake and drive into the heart of the word 'objective?' No journalism is objective. It can't be. It's not even attempted. It's not even taught in J-school as an ideal. Journalists are not priests or lawyers; they do not swear fealty to a higher power that is Objectivity. You do everything you can to be fair. Sorry, but that's all you get.
Do you think a journalist can be objective when reporting on a candidate if they have made a contribution to that candidates campaign? Substituting 'fair' for objective, I'd say yes. But he or she has to really work at it. Why make the job harder? If I had a reporter 'on the bus' and discovered he or she had made a contribution, he or she would lose the beat-- the station doesn't need the hassle over the appearance of bias. If I found out the reporter failed to tell me about the contribution, he or she is fired, period, today. Is that legal? Nope. Welcome to Major League Baseball.
I don't think I ran my shop on any higher plane of morality than most do. It's how the game is played. The business is very small, and if you get a rep that you pimped for some candidate, you don't work anymore.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.