Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

TEMPLE: Caucus no place for impartiality

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 9, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size  
Participants in a caucus at East High School on Tuesday raise their hands in a show of support for U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall.

Photo by Ellen Jaskol / The Rocky

Participants in a caucus at East High School on Tuesday raise their hands in a show of support for U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall.

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Map my news

Wow. Those caucuses sure did raise heart rates in Colorado, including right here in the Rocky Mountain News newsroom.

I know this may come as a suprise to some, but journalists are human. Which means they can feel the urge to participate, to share their views, to stand up for what they believe in when the opportunity arises, as it did Tuesday night.

Should they?

My answer to that question, I hope, tells you a lot about how I see the role of a journalist and the necessary sacrifices that come with the job. I hope it makes clear what you should be able to expect from journalists at the Rocky, whether you're the subject of a story or a reader.

No, journalists should not get involved in politics, even if their main assignment has nothing to do with the subject. They shouldn't vote at a caucus, they shouldn't put a candidate's sign on their lawn, they shouldn't slap a bumper sticker on their car. They should do nothing that would give others the impression that they can't be trusted to strive for neutrality in their coverage.

Some argue that I go too far, that my view asks people to give up a constitutional right to free expression. My response: Of course journalists have the right to express their opinions. But if they do, they must also be prepared to accept the professional consequences.

Imagine if a reporter stood outside the Capitol on his day off with a sign protesting abortion or joined a rally advocating the legalization of drugs. It would make it impossible for him to be perceived as fair in his coverage of either issue. At the Rocky, he immediately would be barred from having anything to do with related stories.

That doesn't mean that reporters can't feel strongly about issues. However, I believe they need to be able to set their feelings aside when gathering the news. If they can't be open to differing views, they need to recuse themselves, no matter their expertise or record.

It's hard to imagine good journalists who don't pride themselves on placing the importance of accurately representing the views of others higher than the need to interject their own points of view.

There's a place for the latter kind of journalism, of course. But at a general-interest newspaper, it's the realm of columnists and editorial writers, not reporters and editors.

That's why, as a company, we hold journalists to different standards from other employees.

Our policy on political involvement says: "Journalists and others working in newsrooms must abide by a more restrictive standard (than non-journalist employees), given the disinterested neutrality from which news organizations must work. They must not serve in elected or politically appointed positions. They must not participate in political fundraising, political organizing, nor other activities designed to enhance a candidate, a political party or a political-interest organization. They must not make contributions of record to political campaigns nor engage in other such activity that might associate an employer's name with a political candidate or a political cause."

When you go to a caucus, you're expected to publicly express your support for a candidate. Under our policy, that means it's not a place for journalists. I extend my thinking to my entire staff - sportswriters and copy editors, too, for example - because today you never know who we're going to need to cover politics. This campaign season likely will see reporters from features, business and sports involved in political coverage and editors from throughout the newsroom working on everything from voter guides to coverage on Election Night.

My position triggered a grievance, then a threat of an injunction, from the Denver Newspaper Guild, which represents many of our employees.

This column isn't meant to explore that dispute in particular - which by the way was resolved amicably.

Its intent is to give you an understanding of the journlistic values I hold dear - even if we sometimes fall short in the execution.

I have heard of at least one editor who so keeps himself above the fray that he doesn't even vote. I think that's going too far.

However, I can tell you that I would never register as a member of a political party or participate in a caucus or even a primary.

Which brings me back to what you should be able to expect from a Rocky journalist's coverage: impartiality, neutrality.

If we don't hold to those values, the damage to the public trust will be inestimable and irrecoverable. Limiting our political activity is a small price to pay for the privilege of doing this work. At least that's the way I see it.

John Temple can be reached at editor@RockyMountainNews.com or by mail at 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.

Comments

  • February 9, 2008

    5:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnSWren writes:

    Mr. Temple, do you claim to be neutral about the Colorado Caucus?

    Seems to me from my personal conversations with you that you have a grudge against it for some reason. Maybe it's because you feel left out of the process, given the standard you have set for yourself of staying out of the process of electing candidates, except for going into the voting booth.

    It seems to me that your grudge has colored your paper's coverage this year of the Colorado Caucus. What do you think?

  • February 9, 2008

    7:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dlocherd writes:

    Gosh John, maybe you'll think twice next time before you try to outright inhibit the rights of your employees. The thing is, no average person really cares weather or not a reporter with the Rocky participated in the caucuses or not. I don't even have a problem with political reporters doing so, as long as they disclose the fact if they're going to cover the presidential election. Your part of a dying breed of journalists who still pretend to be objective with these ill-conceived measures, never distinguishing the most important words: accurate facts.

  • February 9, 2008

    9:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Matt writes:

    Hi Mr Temple,
    from your articles I learned,that your parents had to leave a country, which terrorized it's people. Only the official opinion was "valid", regardless if it was the religion, or an affiliation to a different party other than the NSDAP.
    When it comes to elections, your paper gives recommendations, who to vote for.
    I might not agree with your recommendations, but believe strongly in the freedom of expression. This is an elementary right, the core element of democracy.
    Where do you draw the line - who should be allowed take part in an election, be it primaries or a caucus?
    Does it apply to the owner of a media (TV, newspaper etc) too?

    At this point, you limit the political activity ( as you said yourself) - If it applies to politics, shouldn't it apply to churches, everybodies religious believes too?
    I certainly don't think so. If an owner of news media can epress his/her opinion - so should anyone else too.

    I think it's very dangerous to limit - to prohibit ones expression, unless you think, that the readers are not intelligent enough to decide themselfes - they might even appreciate ones different point of view.
    Just a point to think about, as you thankfully give your readers points to think about.
    Have a good weekend !

  • February 13, 2008

    10:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jestbill writes:

    There are many reasons why your policy was wrong, but there are two that should have occurred to you first:

    Do you require that your religion editor not be seen in the same church on consecutive Sabbaths? Do you require your reporters not own automobiles to avoid the appearance of bias when they cover the car show?

    Your requirement is not logically sound and, if followed, would be counter productive since it only addresses the appearance of bias rather than actual bias.

  • February 14, 2008

    7:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DougfromOklahoma writes:

    To much is at stake. No one should stay on the side lines this election. This may be our last chance to take Most Favoured Nation Trading Status away from China and save our economy.

    http://www.freedomsringmall.com