Keeping you from voting?

[Baron Scicluna]

Does the Post and the News endorse political candidates on its opinion pages? It would seem rather hypocritical that THEY can endorse a candidate, but heaven forbid that an employee does.

If editors are so concerned about perceived bias, then they shouldn't allow employees to attend sporting events either. After all, readers could recognize the employees at a game, and question the paper's committment to objectivity.

The rebuttal for this one is easy. Opinion pages usually don't endorse at this point. (And, if they do -- a la N.Y. Times last week -- they can endorse one from each side.) When the Editorial boards do endorse a single candidate, it's for the election. Coinciding with your right to vote.

My point is that newspapers trust that readers will know the difference between its endorsement of a candidate on an editorial page, and its coverage of an election on its news pages. Yet, they don't trust the readers to be able to tell the difference between an employee's endorsement of a candidate, and that employee's ability to remain objective in news coverage.

 

[fishwrapper]

I know what your point is.
One can be defined. The other can't.
A newspaper's opinions or political editorials are limited to the Opinion space. A news reporter's percieved bias -- under his or her byline -- can be seen throughout the paper.

 

[IGotQuestions]

Our paper sent a memo not to attend Vote For Change concerts a few years back. People ignored that memo, and rightly so.

 

[STLIrish]

A newspaper's opinions or political editorials are limited to the Opinion space. A news reporter's percieved bias -- under his or her byline -- can be seen throughout the paper.

OK. But by that logic, we shouldn't even be allowed to register as members of a political party, since that is a verifiable fact which could be used to perceive bias in our news coverage. Is that a standard policy at either paper?
It would also mean we shouldn't cover our advertisers. Or the company where our spouse or other family members work, or really even the industry. Or our alma mater. Or the sports teams we grew up cheering for. Hell, you could make a case that your real estate reporter shouldn't be allowed to own a home, because his coverage might impact the local real estate market, and thus the value of his own property should he choose to sell it.
But, for the most part, our newsrooms don't have those policies. So why should we have a written policy telling us we can't vote?
I understand the need to avoid the perception of bias, but I think you do that by sending a message of professionalism in everything you do, not by restricting the civil rights of your newsgathering staff. That's a slippery slope that could land us all in the cloisters.

 

[fishwrapper]

You're only reading my last post.
I covered voting above. Asking someone to stay away from a caucus and voting are two different issues.

 

[spup1122]

I understand that caucusing isn't the same thing as voting in a general election, but I guess I don't understand how a company can punish a reporter for their party's decision on primary voting.

I know a caucus isn't the same thing as a vote, but it's the only option if you want to vote before the general election.

 

[sportschick]

If another business told their employees they couldn't caucus, we'd be all over it like flies on ****, decrying the erosion of civil liberties. Why does the management at some papers think the erosion of civil liberties is any less when it's a newspaper doing it?

 

[fishwrapper]

It's a policy clearly spelled out in the biggest newsrooms in the country.
I just don't know what else to state.

 

[sportschick]

It's a policy clearly spelled out in the biggest newsrooms in the country.
I just don't know what else to state.

That doesn't make it right.

 

[STLIrish]

You're only reading my last post.
I covered voting above. Asking someone to stay away from a caucus and voting are two different issues.

To vote in a primary in some states requires attending a caucus. So for all practical purposes, asking (or ordering) someone to stay away from a caucus equals asking (or ordering) them not to vote.
At least that's my understanding. Is there a way to vote in the Colorado (or Iowa or Nevada) caucuses without attending the caucuses?

 

[fishwrapper]

It's a policy clearly spelled out in the biggest newsrooms in the country.
I just don't know what else to state.

That doesn't make it right.

So, you don't understand the reasoning?

 

[fishwrapper]

You're only reading my last post.
I covered voting above. Asking someone to stay away from a caucus and voting are two different issues.

To vote in a primary in some states requires attending a caucus. So for all practical purposes, asking (or ordering) someone to stay away from a caucus equals asking (or ordering) them not to vote.
At least that's my understanding. Is there a way to vote in the Colorado (or Iowa or Nevada) caucuses without attending the caucuses?

It differs for each state. You have a right to vote if the voting is held at the caucus site.
You don't have a right to participate in the caucus. I don't understand the issue in the differentiation.

CAUCUS
1. U.S. Politics.
a. a meeting of party leaders to select candidates, elect convention delegates, etc.
b. a meeting of party members within a legislative body to select leaders and determine strategy.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Have these publishers ever made a campaign contribution? My guess is hell yes. If it's a chain, they have a lobbyist in DC who BUNDLES contributions.
If I was ordered not to participate in a caucus, I would disobey. And I'd be lawyered up plenty.

 

[sportschick]

It's a policy clearly spelled out in the biggest newsrooms in the country.
I just don't know what else to state.

That doesn't make it right.

So, you don't understand the reasoning?

Do I understand the reasoning? Yes. Do I think it's still a bull****? Yes.

For an industry that ******* and moans about rights being taken away, we're run by a bunch of ****ing hypocrites who won't think twice about doing to their employees the very things the paper ******* about on its pages.

 

[fishwrapper]

Ok. We've done this dance before. It's the same argument over and over.
When was the last time Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.'s objectivity was questioned?
Now, how about a reporter at the paper? Just so happens, TODAY!

The 8th and 15th Amendments do not protect your participation in a caucus. But, you go ahead and "be lawyered up plenty."
What's the line? You can sue anyone for anything just to prove you can win nothin'.

That is, unless, you're hoping to go green light, red light in front of SCOTUS. With that, I wish you godspeed.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

People either trust your integrity or they don't. I think one reason this profession is universally distrusted is the phony-baloney attitude that we're above it all. Fairness and neutrality are not the same thing. I'm a citizen first. As for Arthur Sulzberger, his job is to keep reporters from printing lies on the front page, not freakin' telling them not to vote for MVP.

 

[fishwrapper]

     People either trust your integrity or they don't. I think one reason this profession is universally distrusted is the phony-baloney attitude that we're above it all. Fairness and neutrality are not the same thing. I'm a citizen first. As for Arthur Sulzberger, his job is to keep reporters from printing lies on the front page, not freakin' telling them not to vote for MVP.

Actually, that's not his job.
I guess none of the onus is on the reporter. I truly am baffled. This deflection of responsibility, of mission leaves me in prostration.
Vote. Vote all you want. Vote in every election. Vote in the ****ing Water Board special election. Just don't participate in a campaign or party politicking.