All the news that’s fit to print, but no opinions, please
July 29th, 2008
As the presidential election approaches, how news media cover the issues and the “horse-race” aspects of this tumultuous turning point take on greater significance. (Or, perhaps less significance, in Matt Taibbi’s jaundiced view of how media ignores the real issues in favor of reporting on the horse-race. See Taibbi’s hard-hitting Rolling Stone piece.
Meanwhile, in an interesting sidenote, the New York Observer recently reported on a (leaked? genuine?) memo from Craig Whitney, standards editor of the New York Times, warning staff away from any visible political role.
To preserve the newspaper’s aura of fairness, Whitney enjoins Times staff from displaying political views via bumper stickers on their vehicles or campaign buttons on their clothing. He goes even further; although some may feel that these prohibitive policies go too far. He also prohibits staff from contributing to or collecting money for any political candidate or election cause, warning of the ease with which donor information can be accessed and how disclosure of political donations by Times employees would suggest to some observers that the newspaper is taking sides.
Although he tempers this with the concession that (according to the Observer’s version of Whitney’s memo) “staff members are entitled to vote,” this prohibition seems excessive, even for the “grey lady” that this dignified and would-be authoritative source portrays itself to be.
Doesn’t the Times itself endorse candidates and causes? Can it legitimately claim this right for itself while forbidding it to employees?
