It 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.
