So some of you may have read recent reports that NYT reporter Linda Greenhouse gave a speech at Harvard over the summer saying, among other things, that U.S. policy has been hijacked by “religious fundamentalism.” “To say that these last few years have been dispiriting,” Greenhouse said, “is an understatement.”
Obviously, this led to a lot of eyebrows being raised — but should it? Former NYT public editor Daniel Okrent told Newsweek he was “kind of amazed and thrilled” by Greenhouse’s analysis.
Separately, CBS recently forbid employees from making political donations, and required prior approval for blogs. “We can’t have people having personal blogs venting their opinions,” CBS News Senior Vice President for Standards and Special Project Linda Mason said.
Also, former Washington Post political reporter Thomas B. Edsall, author of “Building Red America,” recently said in an online chat reporters should admit their biases. “Instead of hiding behind claims of objectivity, members of the press should acknowledge and discuss their leanings. If anything, that will make them better reporters. Transparency is the best policy for almost all circumstances.
My buddy Matt Welsh made a similar point in Reason magazine two years ago. “Instead of living up to the transparency they promote and maximizing the readers’ experience (while identifying internal imbalances and kneecapping their bias-obsessed critics), news organizations are choosing to remain in a defensive, information-suppressing crouch, for fear that an inch of disclosure will result in miles of lost reputation.”
However, I am still not convinced. This is why this blog is sometimes obsessed with the trivial — I don’t want to weigh in on in Israel, or Iraq, or the White House, because I might be called upon to write about them.
It’s not that I’m trying to pretend I “don’t have” opinions: I do. Of course I have thoughts on abortion, gun control, Iraq, public housing, welfare, Israel, and so forth. (Although honestly, the whole Democrat/Republican thing is boring to me. And I do try to stay humble and not believe I have all the solutions to all the world’s problems, generally).
But even when I am arrogant enough to think I have something new or interesting to add on these oft-debated subjects, I keep my thoughts to myself. (Well, at least on public forums like this blog … talk to my friend Brian Hannon about some of the stupid stuff we’ve debated over beers).
There’s a couple reasons why I don’t go spouting my views on subjects more controversial than dating (well, save journalism-related stuff).
First of all, the political dialogue on so many issues is so acrimonious it’d just be handing your critics ammunition they could use to discredit you. I’m sorry, but I feel on a lot of issues there are idealogues out there who aren’t really interested in fairness — just in their side winning. I can’t imagine trying to cover, say, the latest bloodshed in the Middle East if people knew my opinions on it.
I’m reminded of how Microsoft tried in 1998 to exclude Lawrence Lessig as a “special master” in the Internet Explorer/Netscape court battle. The software giant made the move after discovering an email where Lessig compared installing a Macintosh version of IE to “selling his soul.” (Thankfully, though, journalism critics can’t subpoena my private emails…)
And if you were a campaign manager, who would you rather deal with: a reporter with similar views to your candidate, or one with diametrically opposed opinions? I can see all the leaks going to one side. It’s hard enough to get people to trust you and develop sources, why make it harder?
And sure, maybe Linda Greenhouse can get away with voicing her politics publicly — but most of us reporters don’t have her reputation or body of work behind us.
There’s a also danger of getting drawn into the debate. For example, since the West Side stadium project is dead, I’ll tell you my opinion on it: I thought it was a terrible idea. (I never wrote about it anyway). If most of the reporters the stadium proposal had thought that way and were willing to admit it publicly, I could have seen their opinions being used in a political advertisement. Ugh!
Leave a Reply