The Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board has invented a new set of ethics guidelines for editorial commentators: "Journalism 101: Right to be responsible"
Members of this newspaper's Editorial Board don't write checks, pass or sign petitions or participate in political campaigns. While we may have a personal right to do so, we recognize a professional responsibility not to.The purpose of this editorial is to criticize John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur for contributing money to the No New Gas Tax campaign, whose initiative they also advocate on their radio programs. It makes little sense to me why it is supposed to be ethical for someone whose job it is to express their opinions to express an opinion when they're paid to do so, but not when they believe strongly enough in their opinions that they're also willing to pay to express their opinions.
Not that one expects the P-I editorial board ever to make sense. But the P-I's tortured canon of ethics is not only nonsensical in theory. Here's an example of just how unenforced and unenforceable this policy is in practice. In today's paper, editorial board member David Horsey writes with glowing praise of City Council candidate Casey Corr that he and Corr are close personal friends and therefore Horsey will "be recusing [himself] from the Editorial Board endorsement process in his race". --
Horsey's statement is in itself a strong endorsement of Corr even though it's not part of the contrivedly official "endorsement process". I actually think it's more useful for the P-I's writers to discuss their longtime and personal experiences with candidates than to restrict the endorsements to the pretentious circus of a formal process. In fact, I'm leaning towards endorsing Corr myself and Horsey's comments today only validate my opinion. But if the P-I were serious about upholding its artificial ethics rules, it would have done so with a simple one-line statement disclosing Horsey's personal ties to Corr, instead of letting Horsey devote an entire column to the subject.
But there's more! It turns out that Horsey's wife, Nole Ann Ulery-Horsey, recently donated $650 to Casey Corr's campaign. I have absolutely no objection to either Mr. or Mrs. Horsey donating money to any candidate of their choosing. But it stretches credulity to assert that David Horsey had no involvement in his wife's decision to make this donation. And it demonstrates an unwritten exception to the P-I's policy that renders it completely meaningless: "Our editorial board members don't write checks to candidates. Their spouses write the checks!".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 17, 2005 10:49 AM | Email ThisNow days papers and other media have a nose in the air with a holier than thou attitude, proclaiming objectivity, neutrality and absolute lack of political bias. The only honest bunch are radio talk show hosts whose stock and trade is a point view.
I wouldn't mind the Seattle Least-Intelligence or the Seattle Slimes so much if they declared their already obiovous positioning.
Posted by: JCM on July 17, 2005 11:48 AMMy guess is they don't contribute money, because they already feel they are doing more than enough, I don't think it has anything to do with their "recognition of a personal responsibility."
Once again, the "main stream media" has proven itself to be arrogant and condescending.
Posted by: bf on July 17, 2005 11:52 AMThe MSM is arrogant and condescending but it's only to coverup their lying cheating ways.
It's been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Well, along the way there's a nice "Hotel California" in the MSM.
And this comparison of Wilbur and Carlson to the P-I and MSM is disingenuous. Those two guys make no claim to being disinterested objective voices. It's the P-I which claims to be so fair and objective but the truth is that the P-I is simply the LeftWing answer to Kirby and John.
And it ain't much of an answer, either.
Posted by: platypus on July 17, 2005 12:54 PMI don't think it is appropriate for reporters writing straight news stories to contribute to campaigns that they cover, but I don't see a problem with editorialists giving money to campaigns they support. Isn't that literally "putting your money where your mouth is"?
I didn't respond to the poll for that reason.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on July 17, 2005 04:33 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on July 17, 2005 04:44 PM"The state constitution gives voters the right of referendum on any new law except for "such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions....
The purpose of the referendum power is to limit the power of legislators to pass unpopular laws. The emergency clause should allow for a handful of exceptions only. When the Legislature declares emergencies dozens of times in every session — 98 times this past spring — it is limiting the people's right to challenge its decisions."
Emergency laws...ostensibly for "the common good." It's remarkable how relevant the question is...
Who is John Galt?
Posted by: seanod100 on July 17, 2005 05:15 PMLike the pot calling the kettle black; they favor causes similar to Kirby and John, they are just less honest about it.
Posted by: dl on July 17, 2005 06:36 PMGo home take your soma and be good little milktoasts like us here at the P-I.
Finding them neither hot nor cool they shall be spewed from His mouth.
Capital, Land, People - which one in Marx's equation is the variable?
Madison corollary: Our laws are to be made by a moral and religious people, they are wholly unsuitable to be made be any other.
Co-corollary: Our laws are to be enforced by a moral and religious people, the are wholly unsuitable to be enforced by any other.
Restore the CN Compromise!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do we know if these editorialists have been smokin' something? It's in the p-p as Carlson would say.
Posted by: Jericho on July 17, 2005 08:52 PMSo - When they publish their *endorsement* of political candidates, initiatves and referendums in their newspaper - prior to an election.......that's NOT participating in political campaigning? Oh! That's right! It's only wrong if you belong to a radio talk show!
Posted by: Deborah on July 17, 2005 10:31 PM(Narrator: Didn't some other spirit try this once before with dissappointing results?)
Editorialist: I have an editorial in mind. I have an editorial in mind.
(The people: Ve seig heil, seig heil, right the eddies face(s).)
Editorialist: But it is for the greater good, the greater good. You must believe meeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Archangel Micheal: "Da boss says to hit the bottom button for this group Pete."
Saint Peter: Rightie-o Mike.
Posted by: Jericho on July 17, 2005 10:51 PMI already knew that the Seattle P-I has a much different journalistic style than Carlson and Wilbur. I didn't need to read their editorial to learn that earth-shaking revelation.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 18, 2005 02:02 AMPeople subscribe to rags such as the PI out of habit. But they read Sound Politics, Little Green Footballs and the like out of committment. The PI would kill to have committed readers -- they just can't figure out how to get them. They simply don't understand that quality journalistic talent, sound editing, good news sense, etc., are what drives readership. All of which makes them ascend higher and higher onto their isolated mountain of pathetic, elitist ascetism. Ultimately, who cares? They're one hand clapping.
Posted by: NY Transplant on July 18, 2005 06:15 AMTell the story straight up.
Don't filter stories to fit an agenda.
Be up front and open about bias.
Places like NRO and TNR are upfront about where they are coming from and that makes them more reliable that the "objective" media.
then you can muzzle our guys on the radio
Posted by: righton on July 18, 2005 09:53 AMJust another waste of trees, ink and the time of some wonderful press operators.
BTW, I am thoroughly enjoying my eighth week of not seeing a single second of local TV news. Haven't missed a thing, have I?
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on July 18, 2005 11:14 AM