Comments on Confidential to the Seattle Times

Telling your employees not to vote is the same as telling them who to vote for.

I thought the myth of impartial reporting was over...?

They're being disenfranchised! Come to their aid, Hillary! Oh wait ... this region is Obama country. Well, better luck next time, guys.

If it were North Korea or Iran making people vote in public we'd be calling it undemocratic.

Interesting. After the Times endorsed Obama... so much for welcoming everyone to the table (or caucus site).

@4, agreed. One of the many reasons I hate caucuses.

@2 I completely agree. The media is as delusional as the Bush administration. Trying to foist this idea of impartiality is misleading the public.

First, being impartial is an attempt to change the public's perception of the media. In the 1900s the media was completly biased. To remedy that, the media came up with the idea of impartiality. Lately, however the public has realized that this is nothing more than a marketing trick. The public understands a person cannot be unbiased. The public sees the falsity in the impartiality claim and now distrusts all media. Fox's assertion of being fair and balanced is a great example of misleading the public.

Second, this only suppresses a journalists thoughts. That causes two problems. A. There is no transparency and allows for public to speculate on a reporter's bias and B. the reporter will be less likely use his position as a reporter to sway voters. If you take away his ability to choose, then it's likely he'll use his power as a journalist as compensation. Repression makes no sense.

The risk of losing the false impression of impartiality is outweighed by the danger of repressing a reporter's political desires.

@4 Seconded. A lot of the caucusing process boils down not to persuasion, but to bullying.

Agreed that caucuses are the wrong way to go. A public vote obviously has very different dynamics than a private one. Why do the WA Dems like them so much, anyway? At least the GOP lets the ballot count for something.

It's nobody's business. Now, I could see them saying "don't tell anyone you work as a reporter".

What a nanny state the Red Bushies have set up!

Oh, Will.

Hm, wonder if Boardman and the rest of the Editorial Board at the Times plan on adhering to their own policy?

And yes, while it's quite true there has never historically been any sort of "impartiality" in the news media (Hell, W.R.Hearst made his fortune - above and beyond what his pappy stole in the gold fields of CA & SD - on the notion of biased "yellow journalism"), particularly where publishers and senior editors are concerned, rank-and-file reporters do take the idea seriously, in fact so seriously, that they do frequently sacrifice their rights as Citizens in order to maintain it; one reason you will never see a reporter personally endorsing a candidate. And this is precisely the attitude Boardman's rejoinder seeks to reinforce.

It's not that reporters don't have biases, but rather that they try to maintain some level of objectvity in their reportage; sticking to the traditional "who, what, where, when, why & how".

Of course, in today's global media culture, where obviously biased "talking head" pundits try to pass themselves off as legitimate reporters, the whole concept of impartiality has been thrown out the window, with the shrill screeching of the right-wing noise-machine casting aspersions on "the liberal media", inferring that reporters are overwhelmingly liberal in their political beliefs (something born out by polling), and therefore biased IN WHAT THEY REPORT, while they of course exhibit absolutely no hesitation about cheerleading for their own conservative agenda and politicians.

The Washington Supreme Court decided this some years ago. Approx. 15, or so.

It was a case involving Sandy Nelson, an open lesbian activist, and active member of the Freedom Socialists. Her newspaper employer rejected the off work politics of Sandy and her right to be an activist and the Tacoma News Tribune decided to restrict those rights as a condition of employment.

Sandy LOST after endless court hearings, over years, at the Supremes.

Yes, newspapers, by their nature, said the Court CAN tell its employees what they can or can't do - as a condition of employment - in free time as political volunteers.

Sandy was not fired, but re-assigned from a reporting job to copy editing or some such, lower skills, lower status and possible pay cut.

The case attracted National attention, with ACLU and eminent attorneys and free speech people on Sandy's side.

It was a mind boggling convoluted decision, enshrining publisher's powers extraordinaire over their employers free speech.

And, by the way, back then, SGN broke the story.

Caucuses are paid for by the parties that conduct them, through voluntary contributions. Our "beauty contest" primary, which will not select one single Democratic delegate, will cost the taxpayers of this state $7.2 million.

Setting aside the argument of whether or not someone can participate in a blatantly partisan process and still maintain impartiality...

This is neither disenfranchisement, or all that unheard of.

These folks aren't being asked to avoid voting for candidates, which is their right. They're being asked to not participate in caucuses -- which are political party processes.

The same thing also happens with the military and various other political positions (like judges). They're not barred from participating in politics, but they are strongly encouraged to avoid involvement in rallies, party meetings, and the like that would publicly reveal their political beliefs.

This is why you shouldn't ever see a military officer in uniform or a judge in robes speaking in a political situation or endorsing folks or even putting up signs and stickers on their lawn and automobile.

But Dan's right, you probably couldn't actually bar any of these people from doing so, and some do. But is it ethically right to do so?