Journalists Are People, Too -- Let My People Vote!
"Journalists are people, too." I'm not the first person to have said this. Leonard Downie Jr., the Washington Post's executive editor, wrote that sentence in a 2004 column explaining to readers the difference between the political endorsements on the editorial pages and the campaign coverage in the paper's news pages.
In the same column, he reiterated and explained his decision since 1984 not to vote. "As the final decision-maker on news coverage in the Post, I refuse to decide, even privately, which candidate should be president or a member of the city council or what policies should be set forth for health care or taxes. I want my mind to remain open to all sides and possibilities as I supervise our coverage."
Why is this important now? Because in a memorandum, reprinted Tuesday in the Westword blog, the editor of the Denver Post strongly discouraged his staff from participating in the Colorado caucuses on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) and outright banned quite a few. And a day later, in a memorandum to staff reported in the same blog, the Rocky Mountain News editor/publisher/president absolutely barred anyone on his staff from participating in the caucuses.
This is clearly a tough issue for journalists. Most journalists still strive for what some see as the illusion but others maintain is still a worthy goal of objectivity in reporting the news. Many publications and broadcast outlets have ethical rules or policies that restrict editorial staff from campaigning, contributing to candidates, wearing electoral paraphernalia, signing petitions, marching or demonstrating, and displaying various other indicia of partisanship. The New York Times even goes so far as to impose rules affecting the family members of journalists (no bumper stickers on the family car, no signage on the front lawn). The theory is that the appearance of bias can be as harmful to a paper's credibility as actual bias.
But, voting is different. Voting is a civic responsibility, a ticket to participation in a democratic society, and the one sure way each citizen has of being heard and having an impact on that large remote federal behemoth that governs us from Washington.
Journalists pay a dear price for the special privileges they enjoy. They often have to suppress their opinions when others are enjoying a good political debate or argument. They often have to button their lips when friends or relatives trade gossip or inside information on something they've learned in confidence. They cannot make contributions to causes they may feel passionately and earnestly about. They can't take an offered free ride or keep free samples. They can't take holiday gifts from people they work with. They can't march on Washington or even their state capitols. Most reporters and editors accept such limitations as part of the conditions of employment
Barring journalists from voting -- even in a primary -- because their preferences may become public is asking too much. Ordering employees to renounce their privileges of citizenship goes way too far, even in an aim to eradicate bias or the appearance of bias. An editor wouldn't dare suggest a reporter, even one who reports on religion, quit going to church every Sunday.
In this country, with our pathetic voter turnout, we should be encouraging people - all people, from all professions and backgrounds - to vote, not coming up with synthetic reasons for banning them from participating in our democracy. I don't think any viewer, listener or reader labors under the illusion that reporters don't have any preferences. So, the ban really only perpetuates a hollow myth,
While there is a difference between going into a private booth behind a black curtain and pulling a lever in solitude and sitting in a living room or gymnasium and publicly stating one's candidate preference, it is not the journalist-voter that chose the method to cast his ballot. It is the state political party -- and that should not serve as a basis to penalize the citizen-journalist.
Let my people vote! In all primaries and in all elections. As for other restrictions on public support or opposition for candidates or causes, let that be a matter for negotiation between employees and management, as are all other conditions of employment.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bravo,I'm not a journalist but I do have connection within the Media, which is also a curse.I feel the need to advertise a event that I'm holding for Barack Obama, but there is a overwhelming attitude amoung the people of this country to stifle the advertising of such an event.I would guess on one hand that it is because it would have an effect on the publishers decision to endorse a candidate on the other hand it is a attempt by the communists (or rather our enemies)to destroy our political process.Yo
Truly shocking. And a bad example.
Even if it were legal to bar an employee from voting, how does that support the independence of the election process? I thought the aim was to send one person to a booth in private with one ballot. I guess I always assumed we were aiming for, if not always reaching, one man(person), one vote.
God, I hate it when I am that naive.
How many people does this affect? Maybe 10, every four years? Wow! I am all hung up!
But, they do vote on election day.
How quaint. In a precious flourish of self-gratifying pomposity, the Washington Post's executive editor refuses to vote. Yet he never minded that his paper was used as a cheap, lying shill to promote the greatest American foreign policy mistake in history.
What an effing sick joke.
It isn't just legal to bar someone from voting - it's actually quite common. witness for instance how in 2000 Florida barred thousands because they were convicted felons, or maybe had names similar to those of convicted felons.
What the states can't do is bar people for certain very specific reasons. For instance the 15th amendment says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". The 19th says the same thing about sex, and the 26th says the same thing about age, provided the citizen in question is 18 or over.
Anything not specifically listed is apparently fair game. So, for instance, you might be barred, as in the cases discussed here, because you are a journalist. Or, at some future date, you might be barred because of your declared intention to support the non-incumbent candidate, say.
Also, the constitution talks about the power of states. It says nothing about the power of employers over employees.
The clever piece of misdirection, which gives the impression that the USA is a democracy, is the use of the phrase "right to vote" in the various constitutional amendments. This makes people believe that they actually have such a thing. However, if you have to ask for permission to vote, and if the permission can be denied by those on high for any number of maybe spurious reasons, then what you actually have (or maybe don't have) is a privilege, not a right.
Every one should be allowed to vote.
But, so many of the highly paid journalists are hurting the candidates, and not doing their jobs they are hired to do in the first place.
They bring their personal likes and dislikes to their work.
During analysis, in prime time they bring people who has written books about a candidate and try to do smear jobs, they are simply wasting our time ! Annoying to viewers, I turn to C-span, NPR or PBS.
Not only is it illegal to forbid your employees to vote, most businesses are required to allow them to take the time to do it. By law. I assume someone will sue the papers. Bankruptcy would be nice.
Unbelievable. I had no idea that someone could be banned from voting because they were a journalist. That's ridiculous.
I also don't see why a convicted felon who is out of jail should be denied the vote. How does taking his vote away help society? It certainly doesn't help him.
The problem in this country isn't that the wrong people are voting, it's that too many of the right people ARE NOT voting.
If you, as a journalist, decide to do this yourself, that's one thing, and I will repsect you for choosing to remove even a hint of bias. But, to ORDER your employees to NOT go vote?? That sure sounds a little, teeny tiny bit illegal, and stupid!
Is it even legal to bar someone from voting? Doesn't that go against the Voter's Rights Act or at minimum the 14th Amendment? What if you are an African American journalist, or a woman? Doesn't that impinge on your Civil Rights?
Loading comments…
Posted February 1, 2008 | 02:09 PM (EST)