How an Editorial Page Editor Manages His Personal Views on War (Website they don't want FR to find)

Welcome to FreeRepublic.

Doug Floyd is the editorial page editor in my old newsroom, The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash. I often turned to him for advice, because I liked the way he walked me through issues. He's been a journalist for more than 30 years in the same town. And he's held many positions in the newsroom, from beat reporter to ombudsman.

During a recent e-mail exchange, we discussed the reasons journalists should refrain from political activism. What follows is a question-and-answer session, which Doug agreed to let me share. I like it because it reflects the nuances and realities of real-life journalism.

E-MAIL NEWSLETTER

Sign up to receive Ethics Journal by e-mail:
* Click here (sent Fridays at 9 a.m.)

Poynter: How do your personal views affect your editorial positions on the pending war with Iraq?

Floyd: It's the publisher's role to make the final calls on our editorial policy. It's my job to execute it. But in the process I think I have a duty to argue as vigorously as I can for positions I believe in. In the case of what's going on in Iraq, my personal views happen to be a lot more suspicious, maybe even cynical, about the Bush administration and its motives than the rest of the editorial board. There's no point in wasting a lot of time and energy on a futile cause, but I hope that by the time our discussions have reached a conclusion, we've made sure all the right questions have been asked and the final position has been thoroughly tested. If so, then I think my personal views make a difference, even when the overall stand we take is different than my own.

Poynter: Have you editorialized on the matter?

Floyd: How timely of you to ask. We've commented a couple of times earlier. Pretty measured stuff -- we're waiting for the administration to make its case before we can agree with a military strike. Now things are moving faster and we've got another comment in Thursday's paper. To be frank, it's not as firm as I'd hoped for, but clear about the inappropriateness of unilateral U.S. action and the importance of the U.N. process continuing.

The Spokesman-Review
Doug Floyd is Editorial Page Editor for The Spokesman-Review.
Poynter: Given the fact that you have personal views and many of us do, what are you doing to ensure balance on the pages you edit?

Floyd: Staying on the lookout for thoughtful, articulate commentaries that lay out not just "the other side" but also all the other sides. I'm a big believer in the complexity of issues. They just hardly ever have only two sides. So, I try to be alert to interesting approaches that give readers something new to think about. The problem right now is that we're seeing a serious imbalance on the side of anti-war commentary. Conservative, pro-Bush cartoons are particularly hard to find, but even the letters tilt heavily on the side of people who are very critical of any thrust toward military action. And this is a conservative community with an Air Force base, a Veterans Hospital and a large number of military retirees.

Poynter: Have you considered acting on your personal views outside of work, in short becoming an activist?

Floyd: No. I've fudged a little on some of the traditional dividing lines between journalism and citizenship, but being visible -- protest marches and such -- is too much. I don't want to do something that might result in readers questioning the newspaper's credibility.

Poynter: We're hearing from journalists all over the country on this issue. For many younger journalists, this current social divisiveness is a first. What advice do you have for journalists sorting through their personal opinions and their professional obligations?

If you have a staff full of writers, editors and photographers who have no convictions ... then you're going to get dishwater journalism.Floyd: The off-the-shelf answer would be that that's one of the sacrifices you make when you go into this business. You lock your personal beliefs in a closet somewhere. You become a civic eunuch. But that's too pat. If you have a staff full of writers, editors and photographers who have no convictions and no sense of community, then you're going to get dishwater journalism. I think what young people need to be reminded is that to be effective journalists you have to be aware of your own beliefs and develop strategies for keeping them from interfering with your professionalism. The biggest favor you can do your readers is to make sure you give them the most comprehensive view of important issues you can, with respect for multiple attitudes, regardless if you agree with them. Take professional pride in being able to do your job and hold onto your beliefs without letting one get in the way of the other.

Poynter: I think you were the one who pointed out to me, "Even if we don't act on our political beliefs, they still exist." Where have you gone personally since our discussion? Should we completely suppress our opinions? Develop alter egos?
Floyd: I'm still struggling with that one. Just because you tell reporters and editors they can't engage in public political activities doesn't solve the problem. Undermining credibility in the eyes of the public who sees and recognizes the news editor in the peace march is one thing. But if that person never does anything publicly to reveal his or her personal leanings, the leanings are still there. If they're going to influence that person's on-the-job decisions they're going to. If the impartiality of your work product is compromised, it doesn't make it any better just because you've kept your readers from finding out about it. Still, you just don't do that -- you don't march in political protests, you don't work on a candidate's campaign committee, you don't speak out in a public meeting on a controversial issue your paper is covering. It's an intuitive thing. I think you pointed me in the right direction when we talked about the credibility thing. If we conduct ourselves in a way that undermines faith in our news product, that results in a decline in trust, and that in turn diminishes the quality of citizenship.

Poynter: As the editorial page editor, how do your opinions on this war mesh with the official stance of the newspaper?

Floyd: I think I covered this one above. I'm less supportive of the White House than our official policy. But I understood that when I came back into this job in November. I'm capable, if called upon, to write in the institutional voice, making the case as strongly as I can.

Poynter: You've been around awhile; certainly you've held strong personal opinions about other pressing social and political issues as a journalist. How has your understanding of this tension evolved over the years? Have newsroom expectations changed, in your opinion?

I don't want to do something that might result in readers questioning the newspaper's credibility. Floyd: I assume "around awhile" is your way of saying since hot metal and manual Underwoods. I think it's harder to maintain the separation these days. For one thing, family roles have changed so much. My wife works for the school district. She, too, has professional interests as well as strong personal opinions, some of which match mine and many of which don't. If she wants to support a candidate or a cause, who am I to tell her no? Moreover, as individuals we belong to churches, parent-teacher groups, neighborhood councils and other community activities. Issues and potential conflicts can pop up anywhere. I look around and see newsrooms trying to accommodate those difficult situations, but in a way that preserves journalistic independence and integrity. I think the most questionable thing I've done over the years was when there was an issue on the local ballot to revoke a section of the city's human rights ordinance that afforded protection based on sexual orientation. I was on the editorial board at the time, and we had editorialized strongly against this proposal. But it simply struck me as such a maddeningly mean-spirited thing that I brought home a yard sign. Other than that, I've pretty much toed the line. When I do get involved in the basic civic-minded stuff I start out by telling people, no, I won't be on the publicity committee and hand-carry news releases to the newspaper.

Poynter: Care to add anything else?

Floyd: Just this, and it's probably repetitive. As troublesome as it is for journalists to keep their work separate from their personal beliefs and feelings, it would be a whole lot worse to have a newsroom full of journalists who had no solid personal beliefs and feelings.

To avoid duplication, please post original title only. Thank you.

Why ?

Why?

The website is interesting in that journalist reply to one another about articles, TV, etc. and it shows their true colors.

Doug Floyd ... I often turned to him for advice ....

I see. That explains a lot!

Thanks! Hank

What is so incredibly interesting about this article that ANYONE would want to read it in the first place, let alone NOT want other people to see it?

What is so incredibly interesting about this article that ANYONE would want to read it in the first place, let alone NOT want other people to see it?

Well, I'm glad he posted it and found it quite interesting. It is not the kind of article which will generate hundreds of FR posts because, well, it is hard to know what to make of it. One thing I do believe it that American journalists, even leftist American journalists, are usually committed to fairness. Being committed to fairness isn't the same thing as being fair, but it is more than a start. I have an aquaintance who is is a British journalist and I know that over there, leftist journalists mostly do not talk in the language of fairness as this man does. Plus, I believe that the ethic of journalistic fairness described is miles from what is prevalent in university faculties.

One thing I do believe it that American journalists, even leftist American journalists, are usually committed to fairness.

I absolutely disagree with that. There are crass examples of leftist journalists pushing their Democrat agenda every single day, knowingly and with a sneer, and lying outright if that's what it takes.

Here's an example that comes to mind from this week:
In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell met with Republicans a couple of weeks ago at the Governor's mansion and told them that he was going to send up his budget to the legislature in two pieces. The Republicans smelled a trap and told him not to do that. Rendell's sneaky scheme was to set up the budget debate and vote so that the Republicans would get the blame for budget cuts and tax increases while he, Rendell, would come out smelling like a rose. So when Rendell put his scheme into motion and sent the first part of his budget up to the legislature, the Republican-controlled House and Senate turned the tables on Rendell and PASSED IT! The Democrats went bonkers, the Republicans laughed, and now Rendell is in the silly position of having to veto his own budget.

Know what the liberal Courier Times of Bucks County said about all this? They said in an editorial that the Republicans had pulled a "dirty trick" by passing Rendell's budget.

So there's just one recent example of your "commitment to fairness" by journalists.

So there's just one recent example of your "commitment to fairness" by journalists. I don't disagree. It's just that leftist European newspapers, like the London Guardian/Observer and Le Monde are so much worse than this. It's kindda like Americans used to say in the nineteenth century--our savages are so much better than anyone else's.

Being committed to fairness isn't the same thing as being fair, but it is more than a start.

I'm skeptical of whether "being committed to fairness" is really even a start to being fair. That statement reminds me of the "commitment to diversity" in many places. They don't want any kind of true diversity. They just want people to believe their leftist views on life. Their "commitment" is their excuse not to do the good that they claim to want.

WFTR
Bill