Sometimes a concert is just a concert
A few journalists here are going to Cleveland to a Bruce Springsteen concert next month. But not just any Springsteen concert. This is the Vote for Change tour, which is really an anti-President Bush musical tour.
Is it a conflict of interest for a journalist to go to the concert? When one of my staff asked, I ruled that it isn't, under the belief that it's simple entertainment. But it looks like I'm in the minority among editors. According to Editor & Publisher, most of the big cheeses at newspapers they contacted said, no way. Apparently it is being viewed as a political fund-raiser, which is strictly forbidden by traditional journalism ethics.
The journalists going aren't attending as supporters of the politics; they're there as supporters of the music. I happen to be a Bruce fan -- a fan of his music, not necessarily his politics. (I'm not going.) I thought of it this way: I may go see "Fahrenheit 911" or read "Unfit for Command" for the entertainment value but not agree with the politics. What about the fund-raising aspect? Tickets are in the $75 range, which is par for the course for concerts like this, so the money may as well be coming out of the artist's pocket. And, as someone else wrote, does this mean that every time you buy a bottle of Heinz ketchup you're contributing to the Kerry campaign?
So, rock 'n' roll trumps politics. But I could be wrong on this. What do you think?
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I think it's a sort of a strange tension - but, in the end, it's really just a concert. The people who go aren't pledging to vote for one candidate or the other, they aren't asked to sign anything on the way in. I don't know if there are many Bruce fans who are voting for Bush - and The Boss is known to let his politics hang out - but I don't really see these concerts as proper political rallies.
These days, music and politics are so entertwined it's easy to mix them up without even trying. I have friends who've gone to U2 or REM concerts and reported feeling like they were more at a rally than a show. At least this event is putting it out there straight.
Posted on September 17, 2004 5:05 PM
Help me understand. If a journalist attends a political event where he disagrees with the politics, that's acceptable, but if he supports the cause, that's a conflict? Do I have that right?
Generally, are journalists prohibited from political activity on their own time?
Posted on September 22, 2004 11:29 AM
Journalists are forbidden by our ethics policy to participate in political activities, including contributing time or money. We also forbid partisan bumper stickers. (We do encourage them to vote, which some newspapers frown upon.)Whether it is on their own time or not makes no difference.
To use one notable example: Our news staff members cannot participate in a pro-choice march even on their own time. It avoids the appearance of favoring one side of a partisan issue.
Posted on September 22, 2004 1:42 PM
That's interesting. I guess I have mixed views. I appreciate the effort to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, but then it seems as if all one is accomplishing is cloaking any bias. A partisan reporter will still be partisan, just secretly.
I also wonder how issues are defined as partisan. Would a reporter be prohibited from participating in anti-war efforts or animal rights activities?
Some local issues come to mind that were not specifically partisan, in the traditional sense, but which were contentious. When the community has different views on things like the baseball stadium, school bonds or the FedEx hub, why aren't staff or the N&R as a corporate entity prohibited from making contributions to or being members of organization that support one side, such as the Chamber of Commerce or the Convention and Visitors Bureau?
Posted on September 23, 2004 9:55 AM
No one is saying that journalists have no opinions. We know that's impossible. Our expectation is that they set them aside as they do their work. It's not as hard as it may sound.
To answer your questions. Yes, a reporter here is prohibited from participating in anti-war efforts or animal rights activities.
In fact, we see the baseball stadium, school bonds and FedEx as partisan because they are controversial with clear "sides." Members of the news department here may not make contributions or hold memberships in organizations that support one side or the other.
That restriction just applies to the news staff because they control the content of the newspaper. Other employees at the paper have no such restrictions. Neither does the corporate side. In fact, the corporate entity openly contributes to a variety of projects around the Triad. That's the publisher wearing his "civic responsibility" hat. But it doesn't affect how we cover the news because he doesn't expect us to let it.
I know it sounds odd and convoluted, but it's understandable to those of us who live it. And most traditional newspapers do it this way.
Posted on September 24, 2004 6:24 PM
"Our expectation is that they set them (opinions) aside as they do their work."
Honestly though, your rules go well beyond "while they do their work." You in fact deny them full participation in civic life - dictating that their opinions be stiffled even when they are not working.
Posted on September 25, 2004 11:29 AM
An interesting read! I'll consider what you said over my christmas holidays. I want AOpen 52x32x52 CDRW Drive for Christmas!
Posted on December 12, 2004 5:23 PM