In the first part of this series, I explained how I believe I have been able to isolate my news judgment from my political leanings. My name appeared on the list of 143 journalists profiled in Bill Dedman’s article.

     In a sense, the overarching conflict of interest question, although quite specific in this case, is nothing new. The problem of journalists coming up against standards of ethical conduct is outlined in the policy set out in varying ways and to varying degrees by every media outlet, broadcast or print. This particular problem however is not universally addressed, and although, according to Dedman “some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down,” it’s a sure bet for now there will be no universal policy. While some have banned all donations, others like the Fox TV Network and Forbes Magazine and others look the other way.

     Anyone who believes that any journalist is totally unbiased is naïve to the extreme. We all have our likes and dislikes. The trick is telling a story in as fair a way as possible, and unless one is working for a blatantly unfair and unbalanced outlet, one must meet the expectations of one’s editor. It’s presumed of course that the editor is herself hell-bent on fairness. Yet, fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If a story reported fairly reaches a conclusion not in concert with a prevailing political party’s ideology, say something like the neo-con agenda, then the demagoguery begins. For instance, all the incessant bombast from the right about the “liberal media” and its sins has reached an unprecedented pejorative status totally disconnected from reality. It’s a great political tactic, and supplicant ditto heads will and do enthusiastically endorse it with no question, but the truth is that unless the denizens on the right agree with a conclusion reached or a set of facts presented in any story in any media, they whip out the old “liberal media” spit wad and throw it wherever they think it will stick. They have no clue that the news media should not be in the business of confirming anyone’s ideology.

     This issue raises some very interesting problems. If a journalist is, either by voluntary guideline advised not to contribute money, or by company policy unequivocally prevented from donating money to any political party, candidate or interest group, then what do you about a journalist declaring political party affiliation as a voter? Should journalists, particularly those who are political reporters, be prevented from doing so? If a journalist cannot so declare, then he is denied access, she cannot participate in primary elections in those states that do not allow cross-over voting, which is most of them. Should journalists be in effect barred from voting in primary elections?  I've known colleagues who take the easy way out and don't vote at all, ever.  Dedman profiled just such an individual in his story.  That's a personal choice.

     In my view, much of this has to do with common sense. As I explained in part one of this series, I have no problem with contributions to political parties or public interest groups, and in my case, my political leanings have been and are well known. (In the event you can't guess, I refer you to the 4th graph above.)   But I draw the line at contributing to individual candidates. One of the journalists reportedly fired from her job went way overboard by blatantly posting a photo of her and a congressional candidate on www.facebook.com and publicly endorsing him. May I say that was just plain dumb.

     Perhaps it’s time to enact a “code of conduct” for all journalists, print, broadcast and on the web, a universal policy or a set of guidelines on this matter that could be adopted by all media. Okay, perhaps that’s Pollyannaish, but then maybe an organization like the Columbia School of Journalism could convene a conference with the purpose of creating such a code of conduct on this narrow question as part of the broader context of acting ethically or fairly.

     Here’s a thought. If the industry does not police itself, would Congress try? Interesting, but quite unlikely, if for no other reason than it would be a classic case of hypocrisy, since Congress can not muster a meaningful ethics policy for its own members. Gee, could that have anything to do with approval ratings for Congress in the lowly teens, and the media not much better?

     In the final installment in this series, an examination of the far more serious and incestuous conflicts of interest involving the media that make personal contributions by individual journalists pale in ethical comparison…by far.  

     John Wydra