Maybe it’s time for reporters and editors to come clean about their political leanings.
What’s there to fear? Loss of credibility? Stain of prejudice? Everyone already knows we’re all liberal Democrats, readers tell me.
So why not spit it out? Confession’s good for the soul.
Hold that thought.
Those notions come to mind after reading the transcript of washingtonpost.com’s recent “Book World Live” chat with Thomas B. Edsall, former Post political reporter and author of Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power.
Someone in Seattle asked Edsall why he allowed conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt “to bait you into stupid questions about mainstream media bias and your personal loyalties.”
Said the questioner: “He and his ilk thrive on maintaining the illusion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in the news, and you basically confirming his worst suspicions makes you look like a sap and just serves to worsen conservative distrust of your work and the work of your colleagues.”
Edsall replied: “I think his questions about the ideological leanings of reporters and editors are valid and appropriate.
“Instead of hiding behind claims of objectivity, members of the press should acknowledge and discuss their leanings. If anything, that will make them better reporters. Transparency is the best policy for almost all circumstances.”
This came from a distinguished journalist whose book projects model professionalism. As a Post review of Red America found, “The analysis is clinical, not emotional, which means that Edsall can be sympathetic to conservatives’ genuine cultural concerns even as he’s being clear-eyed about the GOP’s rejection of the politics of consensus and its use of anger and fear to rouse its base and demonize its opposition.”
What’s more, Edsall’s comments followed the recent ethics controversy over the decision by Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times’ longtime Supreme Court reporter, to publicly air her opinion in a speech to fellow Harvard alumni.
In that June speech, parts of which were quoted in a Sept. 26 NPR report and a column by Times Public Editor Byron Calame, Greenhouse said the U.S. government has “turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, other places around the world, the U.S. Congress, whatever.”
Greenhouse shared other critical views of the government as well, ultimately drawing condemnation for violating a cardinal rule: Do not compromise credibility and objectivity by publicly expressing personal opinions.
Star-Telegram journalists follow that policy down to signing onto an ethics policy that forbids even placing candidates’ bumper stickers on their cars.
Greenhouse told Calame that she felt compelled to present candid “statements of fact” to her fellow alumni. But, Calame wrote, “as the influential Supreme Court reporter for The Times, a beat that touches nearly all areas of public policy, Ms. Greenhouse has an overriding obligation to avoid publicly expressing these kinds of personal opinions.”
True.
As attractive as transparency is, disclosing mainstream reporters’ political beliefs would cripple credibility needlessly and create confusion, inflaming anti-media bias, undermining and distracting from all the good work that’s turned in every day and further jeopardizing the First Amendment’s stature.
Disclosure shouldn’t even be an issue — if journalists are professionals, which is to say they’re perfectly capable of divorcing their personal beliefs from their work, as they should be and generally are. Their interest is in exploring an issue or development, not tailoring the topic to fit their opinion.
As the Post’s review of Edsall’s book points out, Edsall worked with that kind of professionalism. Greenhouse’s Supreme Court coverage has reflected that same quality for nearly 30 years. The best in the business have no interest in feathering coverage to advance their views. To say that they do is to engage in hyperbole.
Still, as the public knows from a string of high-profile media scandals, not all reporters are Edsalls or Greenhouses. I’d guess that has more to do with overall lack of skills, motivation and management than political passions.
In these last weeks of election season, the notion of reporters disclosing political beliefs plays a seductive, timely siren melody that might be best avoided but not ignored altogether.
If nothing else, it’s a good moment for reporters and editors to take at least part of Edsall’s advice and come clean with themselves about whether their personal politics are steering their work.
