Sound Politics: Worried About Even the appearance of Conflict of Interest

January 30, 2008

Worried About Even the appearance of Conflict of Interest

I think the story of the Seattle Times encouraging all newsroom employees not to participate in the upcoming party caucuses and primaries is fascinating.

Encouraging the political reporters to stay out of it is one thing, though I don't see the problem of them voting in the Presidential primary. Even if you know what ballot each one picked that still doesn't tell you who they actually supported and why.

But, asking all newsrooms employees to voluntarily abstain seems excessive, especially in the primary.

UPDATE: headline fixed.

Posted by Eric Earling at January 30, 2008 09:54 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Yeah, right. Discourage reporters from publicly participating in the process so they create the facade of neutrality, while they do what they can to slant and bias the news so we get Hillary or Obama against McCain. What a great choice between three senators with virtually nothing of substance between them, including the handful of self-aggrandizing compromises McCain has made to get his name attached to legislation with the most liberal Democrats in the senate . Clinton and Obama have done absolutely zero to justify their current office, let alone the presidency, while McCain has too often acted more like a Democrat than a Republican.

How perfect for our "fair and unbiased" media. Americans get to choose between three unqualified pro-illegal immigration, anti-tax cut, politicians with no real leadership experience, and each who will say anything their audience wants to hear, and govern in whatever ways necessary to gain and hold onto power.

The fact that they are the front runners isn't as frightening as the fact that well over half of Americans would vote for any of them, despite their lack of qualifications, substance, or honesty.

Posted by: MJC on January 30, 2008 10:11 PM

2. Yeah this throws them a bone so they can continue pretending to be objective. And yeah, everyone definitely thinks they are objective, that's why readership is plummeting.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 30, 2008 10:31 PM

3. MJC says the press has tremendous influence on the election, Jeff B. says press influence is plummeting.

That clears it up.

Posted by: BA on January 30, 2008 11:04 PM

4. It makes sense to me. You can have it both ways.

It is absolutely hilarious that the Times thinks they can be unbiased just by not voting.

Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2008 06:59 AM

5. The left need not worry about losing a few ballots from the news media-types. I'm certain King County Elections will work overtime to ensure that Seattle has sufficient "voters" to guarantee the outcome of the November elections.

Posted by: Saltherring on January 31, 2008 07:50 AM

6. Maybe this will, in part, balance the fact that active duty military members are excluded from participation in Washington caucus system. Both parties want the military votes, they just don't want members of the military involved in picking the candidates.

Posted by: Tim on January 31, 2008 02:46 PM

7. What clears it up for me is the fact that Chief Political Commentators like Postman refused to put a single keystroke toward the Ron Sims/Maple Valley Scam because it involved a Democrat. His own paper had it front page above the fold and he didn't think it was worthy of comment.. unbias? I don't think so.

Maria Cantwell, named as a principle in a Divorce action with Ron Dotzauer simply for sleeping with him a week before and probably during and after his failed marriage. No problem for Postman, he says he looked into it and the little people didn't need to know. Of Course Dotzauer recieved money he didn't report from Cantwell, while Dotzauer stiffing his Ex and his kids on child support, but she was a Democrat, so it wasn't an issue. Since Cantwell had this warm fuzzy from her Chief Political friend at TIMES she has continued to funnel projects and funds to Dotzauer and his company. But we wouldn't want Postman and crew to caucus because someone might infer they have a preference. Hmmm

Posted by: Huh? on February 1, 2008 06:52 AM

8. I don't agree with the Times deal here, but I have some amount of respect for the position.

Being objective is good, but it is not enough: you also have to APPEAR objective. Some journalists don't even vote by secret ballot, because that way they remove from themselves a potential vested interest in the outcome. Again, I don't agree with that myself, but it makes sense.

Of course, appearance of objectivity while LACKING any sense of objectivity is just silly, which is the real problem here.

(And no, objectivity is not impossible. Objectivity is not an all-or-nothing deal; being entirely objective is impossible (and not desirable), but reporters can and should strive for objectivity, as much as possible, where it is appropriate.)

Posted by: pudge on February 1, 2008 09:06 AM