Should Journalists Be Able To Make Political Contributions?

Here's a paper I wrote for my Media Law & Ethics class. If you're having trouble sleeping, this should do the trick. Btw, there are a ton of footnotes sprinkled throughout this paper, but they don't appear in this version (lost in the process of copying and pasting into this browser).

======================================
In June, MSNBC investigative reporter Bill Dedman created a firestorm when he revealed the names of 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 to 2007. Dedman not only canvassed Federal Election Commission records, but asked each journalist identified to explain their decision to donate to a particular politician, political party or political action committee – often in violation of their own news organization’s rules. Some journalists reacted nonchalantly, explaining that they had given money to a longtime friend or that politics rarely touches their beat - f.e., sports, arts and entertainment, food or fashion. Others offered a fiery defense of their right to act like a citizen and take part in the political process – by not only voting but financially supporting those who share their views.

Political contributions are a thorny issue in most newsrooms. Political contributions can create the appearance that a particular reporter is biased, or even that the profession itself is biased – which is why they should be avoided.125 of the journalists identified by Dedman gave to Democrats and so-called liberal causes, while only 16 gave to Republicans. Dedman’s investigation showed that only two journalists gave to both parties. While the number of reporters identified by Dedman is but a fraction of those in the profession (most of whom abstain from making political contributions), the findings were nonetheless damaging and led to more squawking over the supposedly “liberal media.”

The question as to whether political contributions indicate bias requires deeper consideration. It is possible that a reporter could separate his life as a citizen and voter from his life in a newsroom. A reporter could capably conduct his duties during the day – adhering to the fundamental tenets of fairness, balance and objectivity – and then be able to attend a fundraiser at night for Senator Ted Kennedy or on the opposite side of the aisle, Senator John McCain. Considering that Kennedy and McCain have co-sponsored legislation on immigration reform and that Senators from opposing parties frequently band together for shared causes, it could be argued that support for Senator Kennedy is implied support for those who work alongside him – yes, even Republicans. Or that a contribution to Senator McCain, a Republican, could be seen as advocating his work with Senator Kennedy, a Democrat. In other words, a political contribution does not explicitly express anything and bias – favoritism towards one political party - cannot be inferred from that alone. Rather, bias is present or absent in one’s body of work (one’s articles, reports) and that body of work alone. It is not established by giving $250 to attend a ball or social function which just so happens to have a political benefactor.

Still, it is the “appearance” of bias which is problematic for journalists who make political contributions. The Society of Professional Journalists’ (SPJ) Code of Ethics has three sections suggesting that political contributions should not be allowed under any circumstance:

• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
• Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
• Shun political involvement

What makes the code all the more stark is that it does not create an exception for those whose reporting duties clearly fall outside the political realm. Following the SPJ code, even a high school football reporter or a contributor to a Homes & Gardens section would be hard pressed to justify a contribution to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any of the 2008 presidential hopefuls. While a political contribution may not present a conflict of interest for a high school football reporter or damage his credibility, the code bluntly states that journalists should “shun political involvement.” That means anyone in a newsroom must avoid political involvement, no matter what their beat happens to be. Upon the release of the MSNBC investigation, SPJ ethics committee chairman Andrew Schotz sharpened SPJ’s view, stating that “contributing to a political cause clearly damages the credibility of anyone who professes to be a detached reporter of events.”

Employees of most news organizations are essentially impaired in their ability to exercise civic rights – provided they have an interest in keeping their jobs. In order to comply with their organization’s code of ethics, certain sacrifices are often necessary. The New York Times company policy highlights sacrifices which must be made in the realm of voting, campaigns and public issues. While the Times permits staff members to vote and register in party primaries, “they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of news operations.” This means staff members cannot campaign for or endorse candidates, ballot causes, and pieces of legislation. Further, staff members cannot wear campaign buttons or “display any other insignia of partisan politics.” Staff members may not seek public office, may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements (Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse was once chastised by editors for marching in an abortion rights event), and cannot sign advertisements or petitions taking positions on public issues. Lastly, staff members are forbidden from giving money to any political candidate and the Times is keenly aware that exercises like Dedman’s will quickly sniff out violators. “Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributions, any political giving by a staff member would risk feeding a false impression that we are taking sides,” reads the policy.

But just because there’s a policy, that doesn’t mean people are following it. In August 2004, Times ethics columnist Randy Cohen gave $585 to MoveOn.org, an organization which conducted voter drives to defeat President Bush. In addition to the New York Times gig, Cohen has answered ethics questions for NPR listeners (NPR prohibits political activity). Amazingly, Cohen said that he thought of MoveOn.org as “nonpartisan” and argued that “unless a group’s activities impinge on a reporter’s beat, the reporter should be free to donate to a wide range of nonprofits.” Cohen also pointed out that few papers would object to journalists donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church, even though such activities could also be viewed in an ideological light. A journalist’s out-of-office activities should be made transparent and readers should be allowed to judge them accordingly, Cohen argued.

Ultimately, reporters who fail to comply with their newsrooms’ policies are destined to suffer the consequences. While Cohen retained his job at the New York Times, the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington decided to drop his column. Spokesman-Review editor Steve Smith explained, “Features Editor Ken Paulman … spoke for the newsroom when he said it would be hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist who is in violation of our own ethics policy. Had he been a Spokesman-Review staff member, he would have faced suspension, at least, for his misstep.” In other cases, the penalties have been much more severe. Calvert Collins, a reporter for the Fox station KPTM in Omaha, published a photograph of herself and Democratic congressional candidate Jim Esch on Facebook and gave $500 to his campaign – after these revelations, she was promptly fired. Similarly, the Lincoln Journal Star canned an editorial cartoonist who had made a political contribution and then revealed that he didn’t “give a rat’s ass” about the paper’s policy on such donations (Perhaps it was the public relations blunder rather than the actual policy breach which did him in).

The rules governing individual newsrooms do vary greatly, and some newsrooms do permit political contributions. Fox allows news employees to make political contributions, as do Reuters and the New Yorker. MSNBC policy compels journalists to report any potential conflict of interest and seek approval from the president of NBC News before making contributions. Ultimately, the individual’s role at MSNBC determines whether a political contribution is appropriate. Joe Scarborough was allowed to make a donation to Derrick Kitts, a Republican who ran for a congressional seat in Oregon, because he hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.

Indeed, some publications carry a particularly nuanced position on political contributions. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram allows employees to contribute to political parties, causes and candidates, although executive editor Jim Witt notes that it’s “important to avoid situations that might raise a perception of bias” and contributions cannot be represented to have been made by the company. Witt defended the political contributions of Star-Telegram sports copy editor Vince Langford and sports columnist Randy Galloway, noting that they “don’t have any influence on what we cover, who we cover or how we cover politics.” He did note that news executives and political reporters would not be given the same leeway and that it would be unethical for a sports reporter to contribute to a cause related to what he covers. “Had (sports columnist) Galloway contributed to the recent campaign to build a minor-league baseball stadium in Grand Prairie, that would have been a problem because Randy covered the issue as a sports journalist,” said Witt.

With so many gray areas, it is clear that journalists must consult their editors and management before making political contributions. And a safer course of action is to not contribute at all. It is certainly a stretch for the public to pretend that journalists do not have opinions – no matter how effectively they are able to bury them – but the appearance of siding with a candidate or party must be avoided at all cost. In an unscientific poll conducted by MSNBC, 34 percent of respondents indicated that political contributions by journalists hurt their credibility and 37 percent said the practice was only acceptable if journalists disclose the donations to their readers, viewers or listeners. Only 30 percent agreed with the practice of making contributions and the notion that “it’s no one’s business what reporters do on their own time.” It is fairly clear that political contributions by reporters damage the institution of journalism. After the release of the MSNBC report, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz commented, “News outlets that don’t ban donations seem to regard them as a matter of personal preference, like joining the PTA. But they seriously underestimate the public distrust of journalists, which is only fueled by such practices.” If reporters and their employers are to be taken seriously by the public – and ultimately be trusted deliverers of news - they must not make political contributions.