As partisan activity and open hostility climbed toward their peak in Wisconsin’s recent recall election, one of my students lost her job days before she was set to begin it. She hadn’t conducted a single interview or written even one lead. Yet she was declared guilty of an insurmountable conflict of interest for signing a political petition.
I’m not using the student’s name here, for obvious reasons, but let’s call her Lisa. And I can tell you she is a hardworking young reporter and writer who cared about accuracy, creativity, and careful sourcing. And she was crushed.
For those who somehow haven’t glanced toward America’s Dairyland over the last 18 months, Gov. Scott Walker spearheaded a legislative agenda that drew tens of thousands to the state Capitol in protest. A recall petition movement arose last fall, netting about 900,000 signatures, including my own. After becoming only the third US governor ever to face a recall election, Walker easily survived it the first week in June.
The legislation, protests, and recalls were big stories, yielding award-winning coverage and peak Web traffic. News outlets focused inward, however, when online posting of recall petitions showed that journalists in a number of newsrooms had signed. News organizations moved quickly to identify, disclose, and even sanction these journalists, though nobody involve disclosed the penalties. Gannett, the Wisconsin State Journal, and several broadcast outlets covered their own employees’ involvement.
None of this surprised me because about six weeks earlier, petition signature fever had cost Lisa her prestigious internship. Just days before her start date, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “un-hired” her, after they asked her whether she had signed the recall petition. This was weeks after she had interviewed and had been offered the job. No one had thought to ask earlier, but that’s the least of my concerns. Lisa’s case is the ideal illustration of how thin our ethical reasoning has grown, and how dangerous that is in today’s hyperpartisan and accusatory age.
At the time Lisa signed the recall petition, she was not working in a news organization, not even a student paper. At that time, the internship she later won and lost had not yet been conceived or funded. She lost an ideal career opportunity after the retroactive imposition of an ethics code on a job that hadn’t been created when she chose to put her name on a petition.
On the other hand, the Journal Sentinel editors I spoke with during this time felt trapped. The internship would have been in the state capitol bureau, which was squarely focused on recall politics for the foreseeable future. I credit them for trying to find another position for Lisa, but they could not come up with the funding. In the end, signing the recall petition was deemed too great a conflict of interest for her to do the work.
I got it. One of our staff members called it “Journalism 101”: Journalists don’t plant yard signs or endorse candidates. Voting is okay, but most everything else is verboten. Especially in a divided, toxic, and charged Wisconsin.
Then, I realized, I didn’t get it.
Difficult questions require deep reflection. And upon reflection, it seems to me that if journalism ethics rely on the perceptions of a heatedly divided audience, those ethics are doomed. Editors often speak of getting calls and emails from opposing sides, each complaining that the exact same image or story is unfair to their camp. This “hostile media effect” has been well documented by researchers.
News organizations consistently say they strive for objectivity, and some of them say they achieve it. Many in the audience, meanwhile, aren’t buying it. What’s lost in these battles is an understanding that objectivity is not a state of being but instead a mindset and a corresponding set of methods.
When a journalist sets out to cover a story ethically, she first has to accept that she’s not “viewless.” She cannot make her mind a blank. Instead, she and her news organization make a commitment to be fair, and to use methods to achieve that fairness.
Excellent point to bring up that nonsigners can be just as ethically "comprimised" as signers!
#1 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 12:42 PM
compromised, sted "comprimised." Pls excuse the typo.
#2 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 12:46 PM
While I completely agree with your conclusion, Professor Culver, there is one aspect of this story I feel you've left out: Where was the UW School of Journalism and Mass Communication to help this student (and others like her) navigate this complex ethical territory?
Because journalism is a learn-by-doing field, the conventional wisdom I've always had about journalism programs is that they exist to give students an education in the history and ethics of the profession. Sure, you and your colleagues have written and discussed the ethics of recall petitions plenty since people started getting "un-hired" because of it, but before that you offered nothing.
I recently graduated with a journalism degree, and this spring (when Lisa's story started getting around) was the first time anyone mentioned the career implications of signing a recall petition. Not in the run up to the petitions, not as they were being collected - only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight were you and other professors able to realize the impacts those petitions could have on our careers.
Obviously, the final responsibility in signing or not signing a recall petition lies with the person who does it. And I agree that the signing of a petition should not be some scarlet letter on any reporter trying to work in this state. But I hope the School of Journalism and Mass Communication recognizes it should have done a far better job helping its students in this debacle.
#3 Posted by Nico Savidge, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 12:50 PM
In publicly taking a stand against the Republican governor by signing a petition to recall him from office before his elected term had expired, the student in question disqualified herself from covering state politics for our newsroom during the run-up to the recall election -- when virtually every aspect of our state government coverage had implications on the recall race. The intense, partisan political battle over the recall race was the reason we added an intern position during the spring semester. If the student had instead worked previously for one of the conservative political communications organizations that has sprung up in Wisconsin to dig up dirt on Democrats, she also would not have been hired for this internship. We're an independent news organization that follows the facts wherever they take us. We serve no political party, politician, government official or special interest group besides our readers. It's important for our readers to know that our news reporters do not take public stances or pick sides in the elections and controversial issues they cover. The student did not lose any First Amendment rights or her rights to support whatever causes she pleases. There are many organizations she could work for in Madison that do not have the same limitations on political activity. If she chooses in the future to work for an independent, non-partisan news organization, what better time to learn the rules most of us live by than while still in school? -- George Stanley, Managing Editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
#4 Posted by George Stanley, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 01:22 PM
Yeah, Nico. Don't go around being a citizen in public, or someone will accuse you of bias and torpedo your career.
Best be sneaky about it.
Or don't do anything.
Of course, the idea that a person who is actually "neutral" about Walker's actions can even begin to understand an report intelligently about politics is kind of thorny too.
#5 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 01:25 PM
Reminds me of this:
http://coreyrobin.com/tag/the-new-york-times/
"Two Fridays ago, I attended an excellent panel discussion on Occupy Wall Street sponsored by Jacobin magazine. It featured...Natasha Lennard, representing a more anarchist-inflected left.
Lennard is a freelance writer who’s been covering the OWS story for the New York Times. After a video of the panel was brought to the Times‘s attention, the paper reviewed it as well as Lennard’s reporting and decided to take her off the OWS beat. Despite the fact, according to a spokeswoman for the Times, that “we have reviewed the past stories to which she contributed and have not found any reasons for concern over that reporting.”
Even more troubling, Lennard may not be hired by the Times again at all. Says the spokeswoman: “This freelancer, Natasha Lennard, has not been involved in our coverage of Occupy Wall Street in recent days, and we have no plans to use her for future coverage.”"
So you can be fired for saying and doing what some label controversial in your private life. Nothing like supporting urination on muslim corpses or calling supreme court justices "goat f*cking child molesters" or how they support the "legitimate rape" fella over his opponent because SOSHALLISM!!11!
But because Octavia Nasr tweeted "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot."
Meanwhile, as the Corey Robin post continues, people who shut their mouths over what is called "controversy" get to keep their jobs.
"Just got off the phone with my wife, who reminded me of this amazing quote from Leslie Gelb. Gelb, who was once the epitome of what used to be called the Establishment (Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times; former State and Defense Department official; former president of the Council on Foreign Relations), supported the Iraq War. Later, after the disaster of that war became plain, he explained why he had initially lent his name to the cause:
My initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility. We ‘experts’ have a lot to fix about ourselves, even as we ‘perfect’ the media. We must redouble our commitment to independent thought, and embrace, rather than cast aside, opinions and facts that blow the common—often wrong—wisdom apart. Our democracy requires nothing less.
“To retain political and professional credibility.” We have another word for that: careerism."
Reporters will avoid calling out wrongs and ridicule things which are right so long as their jobs are constantly on the line for who they may offend. This leads to a misinformed populace and reporters who are too scared to call out the average idiot with an "Obama is Hitler" poster since there's a good chance you'll end up like Susan Roesgen.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 01:35 PM
Or, an even starker contrast to Leslie Gelb, Ashley Banfeld:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.ca/2007/04/truths-consequences-by-digby-since.html
"If a TV journalist publicly spoke the truth anywhere about war, the news, even their competitors --- and Banfield spoke the truth in that speech --- their career was dead in the water. Even the girl hero of 9/11 (maybe especially the girl hero of 9/11) could not get away with breaking the CW code of omerta and she had to pay."
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 01:46 PM
This is a well done article and needs to be read by everyone in the news media. It's a growing problem that never would have happened in the less connected analog environment in the past (who would ever know whether or not a future intern signed a petition?).
In response to the previous commentator, Nico, yes journalism schools should do better. More they really need to think about the implications of a digital society not just for the decimated newsrooms of our decade, but for the personal lives of future journalists and how they should navigate an increasingly treacherous terrain. But that said, there are no easy answers here - and this is a major point of the article. If you're planning on being a journalist, you've as much as neutered yourself politically long before you actually get a job (or even the internship). Ironically, it will easier if you just don't care about public issues at all and that's not the kind of journalists we want. There will always be bias and news organizations have to recognize this. As politics is increasingly shaped by social media, we don't want to hire people who do not participate in politics or social networks - we want journalists who understand and are deeply engaged with both. Bias will always be there - the media needs to realize that in the hiring process and journalism schools must not just help students get a job (important as that is) but help future media leaders understand the complexities of a highly networked society and how it impact organizations.
The decision of the Journal Sentinel point toward a future where any action is subject to an interpretation of bias (are high school elections next? high school reporter articles to be checked and vetted?). This is like an arms race except that the goal is to find people who don't think and don't participate in civil society. If that's the result, it's just one more more nail (and a big one) in the ever expanding coffin of traditional news organizations.
#8 Posted by Mark Craig, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 02:19 PM
people were 100% CORRECT IN SIGNING the recall. I am proud to have been aware enough to sign it. To discriminate against anyone is illegal and those responsible should be prosecuted regardless of the occupation.
#9 Posted by Michael Kinney, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 05:25 PM
I sympathize with this student's plight but I must respectfully disagree with the writer's conclusion that the termination was inappropriate.
I waited 20 years before going to journalism school. Why? Because, when I was younger, I wanted the freedom to take public political stands on matters that were important to me. For the most part, I consider that incompatible with journalism.
The lack of a real conflict of interest is irrelevant. Journalism is about building trust and credibility with your readers, listeners and viewers, so that people from all backgrounds can see you as a reliable resource for information -- free from any perception of you as a mortal political enemy. Sacrificing your freedom to express a public opinion on the issues of the day -- and indeed to be part of shaping their outcome -- is a vital,symbolic gesture in establishing that trust. And frankly, it's nothing compared the the sacrifices some other professions demand.
I was an activist in my younger days. I didn't choose to go down this path until I was sure I was ready to put set my biases aside and represent everyone equally. Judging by what I see in the media these days, I think a lot of people could stand to spend some time working in the service of their political ideals before going to j-school...so they can get their seemingly-unconscious biases out of their system outside of the newsroom.
Since coming to journalism school, I haven't signed a single petition. Nobody had to tell me not to. It was just common sense.
#10 Posted by MTB, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 06:47 PM
I am not now, nor I have ever been a student of journalism. As such will someone please tell me why it was unethical for an intern to sign a petition, months before being offered a job, but it is perfectly fine for that paper to come out and endorse a candidate for that very same recall election. How is a reporter signing a piece of paper in their private life a conflict of interest, when an entire editorial board can publish a complete endorsement for the election of a candidate? If the answer is the difference between the editorial board and a news reporter, let me tell you as a lay person, that distinction is nearly nonexistent. What people know is that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed "X" candidate, especially when the endorsement uses words like "we" and "our." I'm sorry I don't see how a reporter exercising the equivalent of the right to vote is somehow more egregious than a paper making an official endorsement of a candidate, please explain, thank you.
#11 Posted by Anthony, CJR on Tue 28 Aug 2012 at 12:09 AM
"Objective reporting methods and fairness as our mindset are the only ethical—and honest—solutions."
What method did our journalism prof and student use to conclude Walker should be recalled when signing the petition (and presumably voting in secret for recall)? Was it objective and fair? Since the recall failed, do they now believe their reasoning was flawed, or the result was flawed? How would their objective reporting methods be different from their objective reasoning skills?
#12 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 28 Aug 2012 at 08:36 AM
I don't understand how a young person who aspires to be a political reporter could think that it would be okay to sign an extremely public, extremely partisan, extremely divisive petition. Professionalism seems to be an afterthought in our egotistical age.
#13 Posted by Jason, CJR on Tue 28 Aug 2012 at 09:31 AM
Culver is right, mostly. Especially the final point, in that it requires mind-reading to fulfill these ethical delusions. It's one thing to know the rules and then break them. It's another, as Nico Savidge describes, to not know and then be punished way out of proportion to the crime, even retroactively. As for the J.S. telling Culver they couldn't find a spot for an intern they fired before she started for violating a rule she didn't know existed, an objective reading of that would require extensive use of a properly calibrated BS detector.
#14 Posted by George Hesselberg, CJR on Tue 28 Aug 2012 at 11:56 AM
Thank for an excellent discussion on this subjct.
What we're seeing in the digital age is "soft" discrimination. Had these recall petitions *not* been online, one wonders whether the investigative skills of the JS staff could have (or would have bothered) to dig up Lisa's signature. This isn't about JS knowing Lisa signed the petition, its' about their advertisers being able to find out that Lisa signed the petition. Lisa apparently thinks for herself and that's dangerous.
As noted by Prof. Culver, the idea that a person's private opinion cannot be separated from their paid work is simply ridiculous. Staff writers have editors. The job of the editor is to review the work and flag mistakes, including biased reporting. A journalist can report both sides objectively and still have a personal opinion. A subscriber can read a story and know whether the journalist is slanting it. A journalist can write copy and know whether her editor has slanted it.
#15 Posted by Lou, CJR on Tue 28 Aug 2012 at 02:00 PM
"Soft" discrimination against people who lack professionalism. It's all so unfair.
This isn't a work rule thing. A political journalist should understand that the position requires some personal sacrifice, and that's not for everyone. I think media ethics are in the toilet and I think it's precisely because conversations like this even take place.
#16 Posted by Jason, CJR on Wed 29 Aug 2012 at 08:58 AM
Neutral political "reporting" is the cancer of the democracy.
People have views on what is "right" and "wrong" politically, the test should be whether they can make their case with fact and argument.
I'd choose to read that.....
If you fill your paper with faux "balance" because you're terrified of appearing biased, you might as well close the doors today.
#17 Posted by Zvyozdochka (@Zvyozdochka), CJR on Mon 3 Sep 2012 at 09:48 AM