News-Record.com

Seems backasswards to me: that one might not have drunken photos counted against him but the exercise of free speech might cast doubt on one's integrity. What a shame that McAdam's thinks sheep are best qualified for journalism.

You can't think of anything people might do exercising their freedom of speech that might cause you to think that they might not be the best hire or the best journalist? Heck, some of the writing and punctuation I read online alone causes me to scratch people off the list.

Sure I can. "Holding a sign in the air" isn't one of them, unless you're this guy.

To say nothing of being a Cardinals fan

Roch:

It has nothing to do with being a sheep. But reporters have to be seen as honest brokers by all sides of an equation.

If one group of people has reason to believe that I will not listen to them with an open mind, they're going to stop talking to me which, in turn, is going to hurt my reporting.

On a list-serve for state political reporters I belong to, there was recently a pretty extensive thread on politicians doing what amounts to opposition research on reporters in an attempt to discredit their work.

Sadly, the political sphere is so polarized right now, and people on all sides are already given to believe the worse, newsrooms and reporters simply need to be as free from potential conflicts as possible.

I still plan on exercising my franchise on Tuesday, though.

Mark,

I hear you, and I can see how you might legitimately choose not to reveal your political leanings. Fair enough. But is it fair to demand of every reporter that they sacrifice their ability to express their opinions off the clock? Where does that line get drawn? No bumper stickers on cars? Voter registration is public record, should all reporters be required to register as independents? What if you, as a citizen, think it's really important that a particular candidate get elected -- no campaign contributions? No yard signs? No NRA, Chamber of Commerce or Sierra Club memberships? There are any number of ways that participating in civic life can possibly be construed as evidence of bias. I just think a reporter's work should speak for itself and that an employee's participation in anything outside of work that might involve taking a stand shouldn't be a threat.

Roch, our ethics policy says this: "Staff members are encouraged to participate in professional, civic and cultural activities. To ensure that our credibility is not damaged, staff members have a special responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest or any activity that would compromise their journalistic integrity."

It then goes on to list examples, including forbidding participation in public demonstrations, signing petitions, running for office and contributing to political campaigns. The reasoning is just as Mark says.

Roch: Let me answer that in three ways:

First, a reporter and news organization has to find their own comfort level regarding political and public involvement. I’m known in the newsroom for criticizing our active and public involvement in the United Way fund drive because I think it might complicate our coverage if and when the UW has a public melt down of some ilk. The majority of reporters and editors don’t share that concern. It’s an art, not a science.

Second, in an ideal world, yes, I would be able to publicly declare myself on all issues, be involved in whatever organizations I wish, and people would still take me at face value. We do not live in an ideal world. Our political and public realm is as a nasty, combative, ugly place filled with vitriol and invective. I wish it weren’t, but wishing doesn’t make it so.

Thirdly, and this will sound hokey, but reporters are privileged to do what they do for a living. We hold a public trust, self-appointed though it may be. You have to give up something to hold that trust. Those who aren’t willing to make that bargain, who don’t feel that calling, need to seek employment elsewhere because they’re not going to be able to hack this profession at the end of the day anyway.

John,

Thank you for this post.

I appreciated being challenged by you, Roch, and Mark to consider the issues all three of you have raised.

It's complicated, obviously.

We're in the process of preparing our eighth-grade students to take the state computer test.

As we prepare them for this test, we increasingly need to make our students aware of the potential long-term effects of what they do on-line.

While Mindy McAdams's comments are aimed at up-and-coming journalists, everyone should consider the potential ramifications of their actions, off- and on-line.

Even as a teacher, I've considered some potential ill-effects of me being as blunt and wide-open in the expression of my views and opinions as I'd sometimes like to be.

That thing called "free speech" is a complicated beast. It doesn't mean that we don't risk paying for it, sometimes in greater sums than we can afford.

Sincerely,

Hardy

It's an interesting discussion.

Roch, most of the questions you raised in your last comment would generally get a no. Campaign contributions: not OK. Bumper stickers: Better be apolitical. Yard signs for a political cause: No. Groups like NRA or Sierra Club? Maybe a little fuzzier.

I think it's tough too, to hold the actions of a college student, who may be for the first time learning to engage in public debate, against them when it comes time to hire. As you pointed out Roch, we certainly don't want journalists to be a bunch of sheep -- and in my experience most aren't.

If you've got a picture of yourself on your MySpace (or Facebook, or whatever is vogue at the moment) participating in a political rally then that's something to consider.

What happens when a source stumbles on that, and despite the quality, fairness or balance of your work, sees that as evidence of bias? A page on MySpace is something you control and can update, so there's no reason, if you want to work as a journalist, to keep something like that up there.

The paper I started my career at -- a tiny weekly -- is the kind of place where people without much of a background for reporting get a chance to break into journalism. They recently hired a young woman who has potential to be a good journalist, but had almost no experience.

She's covering local politics and doing a good job. It didn't take long for a candidate's campaign, unhappy with her coverage, to uncover a civil disobedience arrest she had in college at a protest rally. They've found a way to hold it against her quite publicly. I don't know if it's affecting her reporting -- she seems to be working through it fine -- but I'm sure it's an uncomfortable position to be in.

It also seems illustrative, at least to me, of why shying away from someone who is actively promoting that part of their life might be a good idea for a hiring editor. It's not to say that people with those kinds of experiences can't and won't be great journalists.

I guess the line I'm trying to draw is the difference between having certain experiences and actively drawing attention to the experiences one has had.

Guys, I get where you are coming from -- really. I see your reasoning. I don't think I could abide. (In fact, I wonder if some of the prohibitions are legal.)

Mark, I certainly wasn't implying that any reporters I know are sheep. That was a characterization of McAdams' take.

On the flip-side, to make yourself a more attractive candidate for employment at certain newspapers, is it not a plus to have transparent baggage (membership in organizations, support of causes, etc.)?

Some newspapers do not seem to mind their reporters' biases shining brightly within their articles.

That might not fit the preferred approach to journalism, but it matches the style of certain publications, even locally.

At the same time, such open bias by reporters has to affect their ability to woo sources' comments.

There has to be a trade-off there, I would guess, at least at some level.

It is creepy, realizing that your past can be used against you the way it apparently is with the young female journalist Jonathan cites, though I understand that it fits the political realities that are so much a sign o' our times.

I definitely wish her well and admire her for "working through it fine," as I truly hope she is.

" ... some of the writing and punctuation I read online alone causes me to scratch people off the list."

I would suggest that's an acceptable approach for on-line postings, but not all, for example, the N-R Blogs do not allow one to edit typos, so once posted, cut-and-pastes accidently left it become part of the permanent record, as do spelling bo-boos. I for one am very guilt of both of these, as well as reachinf got eh r and hitting the f and vide-versa.

I left the "reachinf" and teh typing "got" for "for" typos as a real life example, as was "teh" for "the". I could write a book on my ypos, but no one could read it.

I am certainly not advocating that any journalist act like a sheep. Many newspaper editors have told me, though, that they would not hire a person who expressed his or her political opinions in a public forum. This goes back to a very old professional debate about whether journalists can actually be "objective" -- can any human being truly be objective about something he or she cares deeply about?

So the debate turns on this question: Can you WRITE objectively? Can you win the readers' confidence with your fair treatment of a story that you care about?

Maybe we should ask this question too: Do you want to read a report written by a journalist who DOESN'T care about the issue?

It's great for journalists to talk about these questions with people who are not journalists.