Should reporters vote?
February 15th, 2008 by KimHere’s something I’ve been wondering about, as a journalist who is relatively new to the field and who is also interested in the election: Should journalists vote?
The SPJ Code of Ethics states that journalists should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”
(Some would also argue that that includes blogging, since most blogs are created to express, well, opinions.)
Purists say that reporters and editors can reveal their personal political feelings by voting, especially in a case like Hawaii’s Democratic primary next week, where just your presence at one of the precincts alone sort of gives away your political leanings. Retaining that pure air of objectivity means that you don’t cast a vote for one side of the other.
Politico presented three dueling views on the subject on Tuesday, from veteran reporters/editors John Harris, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.
Allen, who doesn’t vote, says:
The first time I thought about the special duty journalists owe to voters and candidates was during my freshman year at Washington and Lee University, where I was covering student-body elections for the paper, which believe it or not is called The Ring-tum Phi. You voted in a big barrel in the freshman quad and I started to walk over there but then realized that if I dropped in a slip of paper, the candidates I’d been covering — and the readers who trusted me — could see me and know that I wasn’t neutral in my heart.
…Putting aside the sound reasons for remaining electorally pure on behalf of our sources and readers, it’s a great dodge. People make all kinds of inaccurate assumptions about the personal views of reporters. I can always say: I don’t vote — and you can look it up.
VandeHei, who doesn’t vote (sometimes), says:
Politico does not cover local elections or school boards, so I see no reason to sit on the sidelines in those decisions. In spirit of full disclosure, I don’t register as a Republican or Democrat when I do cast those votes.
Harris, who does vote (sometimes), says:
A journalist can cast votes and have opinions, even strong ones, and still be fair. We do it by letting people have their say, by not putting our thumb on the scale with loaded language, and by having the modesty as reporters to admit that information is always fragmentary and it is our role to tell stories but not to pretend that we are society’s High Court of Truth.
Chris Cillizza also discusses this on the Washington Post’s politics blog, The Fix.
So, readers, what do you think? Should journalists vote?
Do you care whether we at the Advertiser show up next Tuesday as citizens exercising our right? What about on election day? I’m curious to hear your responses.
Tags: 2008 election, caucuses, journalism, national politics, work
February 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Politicians get to vote — that’s more of a surefire way to affect “political leanings.”
Who’s the most famous newsperson in this town? Joe Moore? I wouldn’t change my vote if I saw him at the same time I’m voting. Him not in my district anyways.
And, don’t look now, but, I’m FIRST!!!!!
February 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Chicken,
But, in that example, would it change the way you saw Joe Moore and his ability to report political news fairly?
February 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I think journalists should vote. It’s not public record, and they don’t have to declare it. Donating to candidates is different, but voting is something they shouldn’t have any problems with.
To not vote pretends that journalists don’t have opinions — they do, whether they make that intentional or unintentional in their work. Mike Allen definitely has opinions and biases — if he didn’t, he shouldn’t go on all those talk shows and give his opinions.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yikes, I just reread this … My previous post was only about when there’s a secret ballot. A Democratic caucus or party-only primary is a little different. If I saw Joe Moore caucusing for, say, Dennis Kucinich, or Ron Paul, I think that might change my thoughts about him a little bit. In that case, when it’s public, I’d say it’s a little trickier.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
To me, the news tends to bias votes by, well, just doing their jobs sometimes. Litmus test? CNN and PBS tend to paint a different picture of George W. than, say, FOX news or Rush Limbaugh. Journalists’ voting gonna make a difference after the audience hears the tirades of both left and right viewpoints (and, let’s face it, the need for more “right” news came about because of the tendency of leftist bias in the media).
“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” & “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” Is that what the code of ethics says? Different news organizations (again, PBS, CNN vs. FOX) report different things, and you can smell the bias throught the TV set. If THAT’s what the journ’ code of ethics says, then one of these news orgs are violating, heh.
I trust the news to give different points-of-view anyways. I want different points-of-view. I don’t favor any network or other news source — but, I respect their opinion enough to help me make a decision in the voting booth (let me emphasize “help” — it’s not the only info’ I use, of course).
Funny how W’s was elected to two terms when a lot of right-leaning shows aren’t presented as much as the your ABCs, CBSs, and NBCs . . . throw CNN in there, too — FOX is the only major network to offer a more right or independent point-of-view. FOX ain’t in every market as much as the free networks are, too.
Trust the voter. They observe. They read. Above all, they hear the ring of truth that allows them to make the decisions behind the voting booth curtain. There is nothing like being behind that curtain and making your decisions — or did I imagine at least one person who held signs for a candidate for whom s/he didn’t end up voting for.
Enough things influence the voter . . . what’s another thing (voting by journalists — so, let ‘em vote). Some folks vote for a candidate because of how they look. Can utilizing the “who-the-reporter-ends-up-voting-for” factor be any worse?
February 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Kim when you perform resarch for stories you are writing, don’t you find it pretty hard to NOT have an opinion? Everyone has feelings and opinions about everything. If they don’t, then it probably means they don’t know much about it which makes sense. How can you have an opinion about something you don’t know about. Thats how I was with politics. But what makes a reporters job quite difficult is the ability to gather both sides of the story and present it without bias all while having an opinion already made, conciously or not.
I don’t believe a reporter should be stripped of their right to vote, as I don’t think personal biases should affect their ability to present without bias. If they can’t do it then they should be responisble enough to relieve themself of that story. You got a tough job.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I realized a fallacy I made, pretty sad. I retract my “How can you have an opinion about something you don’t know about” sentence.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I think they should vote, if they so choose. Journalists are citizens of this country too and what happens on election day affects them just as much as the next guy. With that said, journalists are expected to report fair, unbiased news. If they can’t uphold those ethics and have their own personal opinions at the same time, then I think they should find another career.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I agree with Crystal and feel that journalists have just as much right as every other citzen. Even though you have an opinion, it doesnt mean you cannot exercise fair and balanced journalism.
I wanna shoot/edit some video @ the caucuses next week… it’s going to be nuts! I hear you’re live blogging, eh? Sweet… =)
February 15th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Journalists have every right as citizens to vote, but also have to maintain a professional ethical code to keep personal commentary out of their craft when strictly news reporting.
With regard to the about post. FOX is very right-wing. Look at all those conservative COMMENTATORS and their shows- Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. In my view, journalists perhaps are mostly liberal-minded. Maybe because they are college-educated and they delve into facts and expose the truth. And the truth often exposes the sociological shortcomings of how business too often exploits largely unaware consumers and citizens with their rampant self-interests.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Why am I having trouble getting the posts up?
February 16th, 2008 at 2:55 am
I have voted in all but one election year since turning 18, became a journalist at age 19, and plan to continue to vote every two years.
My view is that I am an American first, journalist second. And as an American, I believe it is my duty to participate in the election process.
I can see how perception can lead people to believe a journalist is biased, but I also think it is unrealistic to pretend journalists do not have personal opinions.
Of course we do.
But as others mentioned, that does not mean we cannot be fair in our reporting.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I think journalists who concoct reasons not to vote are thinking of themselves a little too highly.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:34 am
This is another local journalist here.
Voting is typically OK. Voting in a caucus is not. You also don’t belong to a poltical party.
It’s as simple as that.
Journalists can have opinions, but should have the ability to be empathetic to all sides and present them to their audience.
Let the people decide and don’t let your opinions get inserted in your stories.
If you can’t do that, then you shouldn’t be a reporter unless you’re one of those “activist journalists” like a certain blonde lady in this town known for a blog that clearly comes from a single political perspective.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Kim, a meaty topic. I’m a CPA, and we have similar strictures against impropriety (analogous to reporters’ impartiality) and the appearance of impropriety. We can’t invest in the stock of companies we audit—just comes with the territory. A few quick reactions.
1) Of course you should exercise your constitutional right to vote.
2) Vote absentee if you don’t want to be seen at a polling place.
3) If you’re an editorialist rather than a news reporter, it would be more acceptable to be seen supporting one cause or another.
February 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
So, yep. Journalists can vote . . . if they make their vote known (especially if they decide to attend a caucus), they just gotta live with themselves and keep wondering if their audience takes them seriously when they end up reporting or commenting on something against their “beliefs.” That’s the “way it is” right?
February 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I think there’s a big difference between voting and caucusing. I think a reporter can cast a confidential ballot — even in the primary — and still be impartial AND be seen as impartial. No one has to know which ballot you pick in a primary.
Joining a party is a different thing entirely and would set a reporter up for criticism in every story that even hints at politics. It would be hard to tell the Republican administration that you’re objective if you’re a card-carrying Democrat.
That comment is really something reporters who are also bloggers need to think about, but you’ll be okay if you stick to the SPJ Code of Ethics.