Media bias is always a hot topic, never more so than in an election year. We’re covering a lively governor’s race in Oregon, plus lots of contentious political issues such as the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
It’s a good time to go over some of our expectations for journalists in our newsroom. The Oregonian/OregonLive is pretty traditional in expecting its journalists to refrain from public partisan activities in order to maintain their objective roles as news gatherers.
That means we don’t want journalists putting campaign signs in their yards or bumper stickers on their vehicles. We ask journalists not to donate to political campaigns or march in support of causes.
Reporters give up some things for the privilege of being a member of the media. We don’t ask them to give up their right to vote, of course. And even though party registration is a matter of public record in Oregon, we don’t ask them to register as unaffiliated with any party. (I am an unaffiliated voter.)
As for signing petitions to get an initiative on the ballot, that’s a tricky one. Technically, a signature is a “vote” in favor of allowing the public to vote on something. You could argue that’s politically neutral and a good thing for democracy.
However, many reasonable people interpret the signature as a statement of support for whatever measure, whether it’s gun control measures such as those contained in the current Initiative Petition 17 or some other divisive issue. I’d prefer news reporters and editors didn’t sign petitions.
Some people in the media have argued readers and viewers are better served by knowing the biases of journalists. That way, the argument goes, they can factor that into their assessment of the coverage.
Can any journalist be entirely objective? We all bring our life experiences and world views to work. And we live in the world we cover. Reporters whose children go to public school or whose spouse is a teacher may cover education. Government reporters pay taxes. Utility reporters might grumble over an electricity bill. We want to find a reasonable balance.
We expect journalists to present issues objectively and accurately. Readers and sources provide daily checks and balances. Our work must stand up to scrutiny from all sides.
The idea of disclosing biases is an interesting idea, but I’m a bit old-fashioned. I prefer to avoid public displays of partisanship and instead place an emphasis on transparency with readers when they question why we chose to use a particular word or publish a certain photo over another.
Readers can make unfounded and false assumptions about reporters and their ability to be fair. Just ask any reporter of Mexican-American descent who covers immigration issues. Some readers call and question the writer’s objectivity, but they don’t call to ask if a white reporter can be objective about immigration or demand to know if a white reporter is a U.S. citizen.
The journalism should stand on its own and be judged by what is included or excluded, what is emphasized or ignored, what is on the front page or the back page.
Social media has complicated the bias issue for newsroom managers. When the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade was handed down, several newsroom managers around the country reminded their staff not to make political statements on Twitter or similar platforms.
I did not. And I did not police our newsroom’s activity on social media that day. Occasionally, I do remind our journalists that people see them as representing The Oregonian/OregonLive whether they like it or not (the individual social media accounts are personal, not professional). They should take that into account.
But we have to find that balance. I want people to be their authentic selves in the newsroom. Could I in good conscience tell a Black journalist not to tweet an opinion after George Floyd was murdered? Should I silence a reporter who wants to share her personal experience after the Roe v. Wade decision?
I trust our news employees to use good judgment. We don’t always get it right. And missteps can result in professional consequences. Politicized comments could mean, for instance, a reporter doesn’t get an assignment to cover a certain topic. Some news organizations have fired journalists over tweets that have harmed an employer’s reputation or violated their policies for social media.
Several years ago, I spent weeks on a committee trying to craft a social media policy that would cover all circumstances. I don’t recall which editor it was, but one was quoted as saying his guidelines were quite simple: “Don’t be stupid.”
One final note: Thanks to all of the new subscribers who signed up after my letter to readers last week. Welcome!
