The Free Press Pays--Sometimes
Political Contributions by the Press
Jonathan Dobrer
People, well, mostly conservative people, are shocked, shocked that members of the press contribute to political parties, causes and candidates. This seems to violate some ethical duty to non-partisan objectivity and compromises what is left of journalistic integrity.
Journalists, according to this view, are supposed to be above the fray and be without passion, viewpoint or any demonstration of involvement with the issues of the day—both great and small.
Somehow, they seem to believe that Star Trek’s “prime directive” of non-interference is an ethical duty. Frankly, I don’t think this is even a close call. Journalists take no vows of political celibacy, nor are they bound to be indifferent to the moral issues of our time.
On the contrary, one of the great faults in journalism, in all media, is pretending to even-handedness. When an Op-Ed page runs two equal columns—point-counterpoint—it presents the sides as being of equal weight. This is often not true, and mainstream science, politics or ethical issues seem to be no stronger than fringe and marginal opinion.
This is mockery of “objectivity,” and the paradox is that these presentations imply that there is no objective truth. One idea is as true as another.
Journalists are not supposed to seek the headlines or become part of the story, but I see less harm in disclosing political contributions than in pretending to objectivity, indifference or being an anthropologist and therefore a “non-participant observer.”
Two stories illustrate the heartless flaws in this so-called ideal. Following the North Ridge Earthquakes, a bunch of frantic rescuers were trying to dig out some people trapped in a building that had collapsed. A news photographer came by and started taking pictures. A rescuer trying to lift a slab called out to him for help. His response was that he couldn’t get involved because he was press. No! His responsibility was human before professional.
Similarly, and to me, equally unbelievably, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon and CNN contributor, was covering a story in a war zone. A child with a terrible head injury was brought to him and he did the right thing. He worked to save a life. Some of his colleagues, pure of heart but unclear on what a heart is for, criticized him for getting involved and losing his objectivity.
While these examples seem very clear to me, I can see how reasonable people could disagree on the probity of journalists participating financially in the stories they cover. There are some exceptions where I would expect there to be a clear separation of money and coverage. In areas of business reporting, the analysts should not have a dog or a dollar in their subjects. Restaurant critics should not own stock in restaurants. However, in general, it seems far more ethical to disclose your values and which team you are rooting for, than to pretend not to care.
One of the factors that gives this particular revelation of journalists writing checks legs is that the vast majority of contributors went to Democratic candidates and liberal issues. This would seem to confirm the liberal bias in the media. But isn’t it better to know? Does anyone seriously think that if we were to search the political giving records of the publishers, owners, shareholders and boards of directors of the major media conglomerates that the vast preponderance of their contributions would not go to Republican candidates and conservative causes? We’re going to worry about the classical music critic of the New York Times and not Rupert Murdock?
There are clearly a lot of liberal reporters. Don’t you want to know if they put their money where their hearts are? There are clearly conservative editorial writers and publishers, what’s wrong with them living out their values in the open? The pretense of a journalistic cult of vestal virgins seems to me a harmful fiction. I am disappointed that so few people who cover the news stood up to be counted—on both sides. I am far less bothered by the imbalance than the small number. More giving, more participation and more transparency are good for both the public and the press.
Sunshine and full disclosure are the best disinfectants. Besides, apart from Bob Woodward and Robert Novak, who has enough money to influence a subject or gives enough money to sell out their integrity?
©2007 Jonathan Dobrer
Leave a comment