Posted on 10/19/2004 7:53:08 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Editor Vickie Gowler of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, who suspended two reporters for attending one of the recent pro-Kerry "Vote for Change" concerts that raised money for political causes, said she would have compensated the reporters for the money they'd spent on tickets if they'd approached her about the issue.
"I encouraged people to talk to me or the managing editor if they had any concerns," Gowler said, citing a memo she issued Sept. 27 warning staffers not to attend the concerts headlined by Bruce Springsteen and others if their beats suggested a potential conflict. "If they came to me, they might have brought up issues that I didn’t know."
Gowler said she found out that the reporters had attended the concert when a senior editor overheard someone talking about it.
Gowler said reporters Chuck Laszewski and Rick Linsk, who are part of the paper's investigative team, were suspended for three days for attending the concert on Oct. 5. Because their assignments span such a broad spectrum, Gowler considered them to be in conflict. "They get involved in covering things that relate to politics and elections," Gowler said.
In fact, the editor said she had been planning to assign one of the reporters to follow a developing story on issues surrounding a new computer voting system for Minnesota, which involves Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer.
"I don't know how I would explain to readers if they challenged why one of these reporters was covering a Republican state officeholder on a controversial state issue," Gowler said. "We had to assign someone out of the political reporting team."
Union officials filed a grievance Oct. 13 against the paper on the reporters' behalf, which prompted a hearing Monday. Gowler attended the hearing, but would not discuss what occurred.
Minnesota Newspaper Guild Typographical Union executive officer Mike Sweeney said the guild asked for the suspensions, which were served earlier this month, to be rescinded, but the paper declined. He said the case would go to arbitration, but not until 2005.
"They went way overboard with this," Sweeney said about the suspensions. "The newsroom ethics policy was bargained with the union and this (memo) does not meet the standard of that. The issuance of the memo violated the contact."
There is some dispute over whether the Sept. 27 memo was approved by an official from the guild. Gowler said a union steward approved the memo, but Sweeney said no formal OK was ever given.
Gowler said several Pioneer Press editorial staffers had asked if they would be allowed to attend the concerts, but she believes only one of those -- a librarian -- actually went. She said the librarian was found not to be in conflict.
The concerts, which raised money for a number of progressive political causes, have sparked ethics discussions in several newsrooms. Editors have taken different approaches to the situation, ranging from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland not barring anyone from attending to The Washington Post forbidding every reporter from attending, even if they do not cover politics.
The issue sparked some controversy at the Star Tribune, where reporters were originally told not to attend at all, then asked to avoid the concerts if they believed it posed a conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.
They could have talked management into covering the concert -- attending as journalists and writing a story afterward. They didn't bother; they went as paying audience at a partisan fundraiser.
That is a clear conflict with the neutrality expected (though in this election often ignored) of journalists. If they became known as contributors to the Kerry Kampaign they would be seen as partisans. Who would trust what they wrote about politics thereafter?
I'd have fired their asses, not suspended them.
~LS
If "these people have as much right to voice their opinion as we do" then why did the Washington Post forbid its reporters to attend such events, even on their own time?
Should the reporters be allowed to make political advertisements for one party or the other -- "on their own time"? Because that's the way your argument is trending.
When one takes a job one signs on to the rules of the employer. For journalists this is just one of them.
~LS
I don't work for the Post but I'd guess it has something to do with their methods of remaining unbiased run amuck into the realm of uncontroversiality.
Should the reporters be allowed to make political advertisements for one party or the other -- "on their own time"? Because that's the way your argument is trending.
Of course they should. It's our Constitutional Right. If ones opinion detracts some of ones patrons then that's the price one pays. Yes, if the employer is hurt also then they should have a say in his continued employment. But let's face it, there's verrrry few reporters who's bias doesn't already show trough like a search light when it comes to politics. That goes ditto for their employers. I also don't think you'd argue that the employer's and the employee's opinion's are pretty well aligned before the first report is ever filed.
When one takes a job one signs on to the rules of the employer. For journalists this is just one of them.
Agreed. But when a companies policy leads to the disfranchisement (as in freedom of speech not deprived of one's right to vote) of its employees then that employee has some tough choices to make.
There's no question that maintaining ones objectivity is a difficult task. Probably the biggest burden on a journalist. Maintaining ones objectivity and remaining unbiased are two different things though.
I don't know if you watch PBS but there's a man on there named Tavis Smiley. He's definitely black and definitely a liberal but when it's time to discuss something white or conservative he does it factually, respectfully and, most importantly, fairly regularly. He presents the story and leaves the opinions to the viewer.
This is the method of maintaining impartiality, not muzzling and neutering and hiding behind a veil of ignorance.
Of course a reporter has the Constitutional right to make a partisan campaign commmercial or to disagree publicly with his employer. And the employer has the right to fire him for it -- and, trust me, he would be fired. Because he has blatantly cast doubt on the ostensible neutrality of the news columns. And yeah, yeah, I know that in this election the MSM are NOT neutral. But they cannot afford to be blatant about it.
The reporter or any employee of any organization has "taken the King's shilling" -- he's implicitly agreed not to do certain things. That is by no stretch "disenfranchisement" (which properly used refers to voting). If the employee disagrees with his employee's policies he should do the honorable thing and resign.
I watch PBS occasionally but I've never seen Smiley. But a lot of channels have opinion people (like newspaper columnists) who have their own political viewpoints and make no bones about them.
~LS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.