Interesting piece on reporters who blog. Ed Cone and Instapundit make the point that I ought to be able to, say, criticize the president's proposal for Social Security here, then turn around and cover said proposal for CQ.
I disagree.
Funny business, journalism. No profession, I'd offer, places more explicit and implicit restraints on one's personal life. Government employees have more freedom to engage in democracy than me. I can't contribute money to or volunteer for candidates, political parties or causes. While any of my friends and family are well aware of my political beliefs, I wouldn't dare write about them here, even though blogs aren't something explicitly covered in CQ's employee guidelines. One of my good friends, a reporter for the AP, won't even talk politics privately; to this day I don't know whether he voted for Bush or Kerry. The executive editor of the Washington Post says he doesn't vote at all.
I suppose Cone and Reynolds would say we're disengenuous. I say we in the news writing business -- this doesn't apply to Paul Krugman -- owe our sources the presumption, at least, that they're going to get an open mind when they talk to us and a fair shake when we write about them.
Anyway, if it seems like I've gone a stretch without posting anything new -- like earlier this week -- it's because I'm wrestling with these weighty issues, wondering if I've crossed some ethical line simply by joking publicly about supermodels and tsunami.
Okay, not really. It's probably because I'm too hungover or too tired. But occasionally I do think.
Update: Another journalist, Mark Binker, has more ruminations on the subject here. He's also got a link to something about sleepless Russian bears, for you non-journalists who could give a shit about our angst.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment