BY MIKE CETERA
A Time magazine columnist makes the compelling case that journalists should disclose their choices at the ballot box. In The Case for Full Disclosure, James Poniewozik argues journalists should tell readers for whom they vote to "expose the sham of neutrality--which few believe anyway--and compel opinion and news writers alike to prove, story by story, that fairness is possible anyway."
The reasons not to say whom you're voting for boil down mainly to the interests of journalists, not those of readers and viewers. It would be a pain in the neck. Campaign sources would mistrust you. Radio hosts and bloggers would have a field day. Readers would become suspicious.
It's an interesting proposition. Would readers best be served by knowing the writer's political bias?
This is a question that has been chatted up seemingly more and more. Online Journalism Review put the question this way: Should journalists vote?
A poll on that Web site found that 38 percent of respondents thought journalists should vote and disclose their choices, while 59 percent thought journalists should vote and keep it quiet. Just 1 percent said journalists should not vote.
I happen to fall in the minority on this one (although my beliefs in this matter are shaky, at best). I haven't voted in a number of elections because I think a voting record is just one more thing people can question when discussing the issue of political fairness. Primaries are even more dangerous than general elections because they are party activities; anyone participating has to declare "allegiance" to one group or another.
From Online Journalism Review:
A journalist's job is to investigate and to report on controversies, including political ones. It's ridiculous to believe that their reporting is not going to ever lead them to conclude that certain parties' or certain candidates' positions are better for their audience than others'.If that's the case, those journalists' reporting would be incomplete -- even misleading -- if it did not acknowledge and explain the reasons for those conclusions.
Asking journalists to remain silent on politics cheats readers by promoting the idea that a well-informed, "objective" source will have nothing to say about which candidates for elected office offer the best hope for a community. If a reporter's got nothing to say, why should anyone read him/her?
Politico weighs in on the other side:
I'm part of a minority school of thought among journalists that we owe it to the people we cover, and to our readers, to remain agnostic about elections, even in private. I figure that if the news media serve as an (imperfect) umpire, neither team wants us taking a few swings.
I'm torn on this issue. Would it be helpful to readers in deciding whether to trust a news source to know the political perspective of that source? Or, would knowing only lead to more distrust?
Of course you should vote. Primaries too.
If someone wants to not read you because of your voting history...well I see no distinction in not wanting to read you because of your race, gender, sexuality or religion either. Those people have long ago moved on to more myopic pastures.
You guys/gals are responsible for your product...end of story. So long as you are willing to be challenged, and defend your work to all sides, than I think we have a happy balance. The Beacon Blog is a huge step in the right direction on this front.
And that's why I keep coming back...
But if you reveal how you vote, your votes may then might not match the obvious biases that I know you have... :-)
Well done, sir.