New Organizations and Political Donations

MSNBC.com is carrying a story in which it reveals that reporters who make political contributions give overwhelmingly to Democrats, at a ration of 9 to 1. This really isn't news, but later in the report comes this:

There's a longstanding tradition that journalists don't cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work. Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates.

Traditionally, many news organizations have applied the rules to only political reporters and editors. The ethic was summed up by Abe Rosenthal, the former New York Times editor, who is reported to have said, "I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus."

But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries. The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.

What changed? First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. The Iraq war fueled distrust of the press from both sides. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors.

As the policy at the Times puts it: "Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides."

Now before some lefties go all "Freedom of Speech" on the matter, please note that these are private employers and they can impose any rules they like. But there is another out as well, if you want to give money to candidates, don't give more than $200. Simple, $200 or less in contributions are not reported to the FEC (rules are different for state and local elections).

Look, bias in reporters is not news and it shouldn't be surprising that reporters have political dispositions. I don't even have a problem with the overwhelmingly Democratic nature of reporters, they have their rights as well.

The problem that I, and most other people have, is that reporters try to tell me that they don't have a bias, that they are professionals, that they don't allow their personal feelings to interfere with their reporting. But such a position is pure hogwash. If you have a political outlook, it taints your viewpoint on issues and events. I make no bones of the fact that I have a conservative bias in my viewpoint. Of course, I am a lawyer and not a reporter, but I know that my bias affects my work and I am responsible enough to understand that it will affect my work.

My wife is a reporter (or was) and she regularly claimed that she was objective. But as much as I love her, she was not objective. It is impossible for anyone to witness events and cover issues and not be affected by the event. It is impossible to not view events through a prism of experience. Most reporters may be liberal, but they also tend to be cynical. Does cynicism not creep into their reporting?

Now, back to the ban on political activity in news organizations. While it is certainly within the rights of a private company to place limits on its employees, I am not sure a blanket ban is the rigtht way to go. Sure, it is easier to enforce than allowing some reporters, like sports reporters, to give political funds but not others. But a blanket ban does quash a great deal of political activity.

Here is an idea. The media is big on disclosure of political activity. In part it gives them fodder for reporting, but it does serve a purpose. Why not take the disclosure one step further and disclose the political activity of the reporters in its employ. Regularly, say monthly or bi-monthly, the media outlet should just publish the political contributions of its staff--all staff. Thus, with the information in the public sphere, the public can decide for itself whether the reporter has a bias based on his/her political giving. No more hiding, no more spinning. Put the facts out there and let the people decide. W

hat is more American than that?