Newsrooms need not be monasteries, full of cloistered
journalists, separated from the real world by imagined ethical
imperatives.
Let me just say it: Journalists not only
can be active in their communities, they
should
be. They can do so without fear of becoming entangled in conflicts of
interest if they follow some common-sense rules. They should do so
because journalists cannot begin to understand the society and culture
they cover if they continue to keep these at arm's length, for fear of
being tainted.
To participate is to understand. To understand a community is to be a valuable observer of its events.
We have likely distorted the ethics message into an inappropriate vow of civic celibacy.I
realize that there are plenty of factors that explain journalists'
aversion to civic participation, but it seems to me that, in some
quarters, there has been an overreaction.
Over the last couple
of months, people I work with have approached me with some measure of
anxiety about this topic. A new columnist wanted to inform me of his
involvement with his parish council. Another journalist, from another
church, inquired about whether it would be appropriate to do a task
asked of him by his pastor.
And as each asked, I wondered,
What hath we wrought?
Is this what we intended as we tried to impress upon our colleagues the
importance of being objective observers? Did we really want them to
fear
all volunteer work? At their churches? At their children's schools?
When
you hear -- as I have -- normally reasonable journalists talk aloud
about whether it's a conflict of interest to: 1) register to vote, 2)
register as anything but an independent or 3) not vote at all
(particularly if you're a government or political reporter or editor),
you begin to understand that we have likely distorted the ethics
message into an inappropriate vow of civic celibacy.
Here's what
the message should be: Go forth and multiply your good acts. But use
some protection. The potential for conflicts of interest does exist.
But it's relatively easy to avoid. Participation will help us become
better journalists.
To participate is to understand. To understand a community is to be a valuable observer of its events.The rules are
pretty simple, generally having to do with the need to avoid conflicts.
Boiled down, this means that if you participate actively in some
organization, you can't write about the group. But let's be specific.
Does
membership on a parish council at a Catholic church mean you cannot
write about the Catholic Church or issues swirling around it? I don't
think so, nor does it require a warning label on the story:
Warning, the writer is Catholic.
Membership on this council means, for instance, that the writer
shouldn't report on St. Anne's Catholic Church, if that's where he
serves on the council.
I
can envision some circumstances, however, where disclosure -- in a column, for instance -- might be appropriate.
OK,
so you can't write about the specific organizations you join. But there
are other ground rules that you should spell out if you are considering
joining a group's governing body. You might be surprised at how quickly
these disqualify you from holding a leadership position.
Rule No. 1: Generally, you're always a journalist.
If there's something happening on the board -- or something likely to
happen that the board doesn't want to get into the news -- the board
shouldn't ask a journalist to serve. Are there exceptions? Maybe, but
probably not many. Common sense should rule.
Rule No. 2: There are limits on what you can and
can't do to raise money, which is, frankly, the reason many non-profit
boards solicit specific members in the first place. Working a booth at
the church fair? Fine. Calling up someone in the community and asking
for money? Dicier. Are they newsmakers? Will they be giving the money
because of the cause or because it's you, the journalist, who's asking?
Will there be an expectation of quid pro quo? Again, use common sense, but, as a general rule, avoid this.
Rule No. 3: If they want you on only because they
envision that you will be their well-connected publicity agent, getting
them into the news report often, run the other way. This would be an
abuse of your role as journalist. Eschew publicity committees, unless,
possibly, their duties are limited to putting out the internal
organization newsletter.
Rule No. 4: Obviously, if you cover this organization somehow, don't even think about joining it.
I'm
convinced, even with these guidelines, that there is still a lot of
open territory for journalists who want to be active. Here in our
newsroom, folks have "adopted" schools that are trying to launch
newspapers. OK, that's easy. But there's virtually no reason a
journalist shouldn't serve on the PTA -- or volunteer with the local
Red Cross, American Cancer Society or myriad other groups.
I
suspect there are many journalists out there shaking their heads and
wondering if I've now gone over the deep end. I'd like to hear from you.
There is still a lot of open territory for journalists who want to be active.In
the meantime, I think journalism will generally be better served by
having reporters and editors who, using some common-sense guidelines,
are more engaged with their communities than they are estranged from
them.
What better way to understand the faithful and their
issues than to participate in the arenas where they practice their
faiths -- and to share their faith?
What better way to
understand education and its role in society than to witness,
first-hand as a volunteer, its travails and its successes?
What better way to understand a community than to be active in it?
Yes,
there are common-sense precautions. But avoidance isn't a precaution;
it's a recipe for writing cluelessly about things to which we could
lend an authoritative voice.
