Ethics question

Good points, both.

I don't want to name the cause, but it's a "respectable" one that wouldn't be objectionable to anyone in journalism.

As for asking the people I worked for: I should, but I don't want to.

Anyway. Thanks, everyone, for your comments; unless there was a go-ahead-and-do-it consensus, I planned to abstain from the activism. So I will abstain from the activism.

 

It's may not be the right decision. It certainly isn't for 99% of the citizens of this country.
But, it is the correct decision for you and your career.

 

Good call SVB,
my knee-jerk reaction, as a journalist, was to strongly urge you not to avoid the activism this year. A reputation as a objective and fair journalist is a valuable thing - don't do anything, no matter how minor it might seem, that could call your objectivity into question.

It's a tough spot you're in, because on one hand, it is college, the time to explore as many different parts of life as humanly possible.
But if you truly, in your heart of hearts, want to be a journalist, you have to steer clear.

 

I think it's ridiculous for a journalist not to vote, even he/she is covering the candidates in question. In a democratic society, I believe it everyone's obligation to vote. I see too many people come up with excuses why they can't vote and, frankly, I'm appalled by the lack of voter turnout at every election.

I understand journalists' point about not voting, but I severely disagree with it. I don't think voting is simply a right that we surrender. I think it's an obligation for all citizens of voting age.

My $.02.

 

Is this not a cause you can help by sitting in an office stuffing envelopes or something not so public? That would allow you to support it without turning up in a google search. Or is it the fun of the advocacy itself rather than support for the cause that drives you? Neither is the wrong answer, but there is certainly a difference.

 

SVB, I think you're making the right call, even if it pisses me off that journalists have to give up things that everybody else takes as their right. I think it's the right call because you've already started dealing with politicians as a journalist and will again in eight months. Going back into advocacy might put you in a situation where your activism now might make it more difficult for you to deal with politicians as a journalist later, and your previous journalistic activities might make it more difficult to deal with them as an advocate.

As for the issue about the perception of objectivity and how somebody can look up your name on google, here's some food for thought: What if somebody participated in politics BEFORE they started their journalism career? Somebody would still be able to find their political activities, and do we actually think that anybody who finds those activities would listen to the explanation that those came "before I became a journalist"? I think it's much more likely they'd just hold it up as evidence of your bias. So are we supposed to abstain from politics from birth just in case we end up being journalists? If I'm a college freshman and hadn't picked a major yet, though I have some interest in journalism, am I supposed to stay out of politics just in case somebody 30 years down the road finds out about causes I championed when I was 18? Sounds pretty asinine to me. That's one reason I've always believed that journalists shouldn't try to create the perception of having no opinion. They should instead create the perception, backed up by the reality, that their opinions don't seep into their work.

 

Voting and political activism are

That's fine. I can agree.
But, you're comparing apples and chads.
Political activism and voting are not the same argument. And to do so, would only further confuse the issue.

 

I'll take it a step further: There are plenty of citizens available to vote. But there aren't plenty of journalists striving to maintain their objectivity for professional transparency.

Clearly we're all citizens first, journalists second. But I look at this almost like a parenting thing: My kid needs friends, but I've got to be his dad, not his "friend." Other people can be his friend but no one else can be his dad.

For the relatively minute number of people who need to be journalists, it's worth losing them as voters, I think. Same with activists. Leave that to the non-journalists -- there are more of them than us.

 

That may be too far. If you work for an editorial board. You're an editorial writer. If you covering a campaign. Then, I would support your decision not to vote.
If you're slinging copy on a sports desk or cover Corrupt U., I don't see a problem with voting. It's your right.

 

Sorry, that's what I meant -- people who cover campaigns or are put out there as a paper's political "expert." Not copy editors, feature writers, sports writers, photogs, etc.

Just the key political reporters. Not even sure about the editorial writers, since they always work from some sort of agenda.

 

Don't have a problem with anybody voting. Even a political correspondent. Last I checked, your votes are not public. Nobody knows who you voted for. It doesn't compromise your journalistic reputation. So what's the problem?

What's next? A political reporter not allowed to have innermost thoughts and feelings? They are about as public as the vote you cast as well.

 

Um, no.