BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
FREE SPEECH FOR JOURNALISTS.
How much free speech is a journalist entitled to outside his or
her own newsroom? It's a fascinating and difficult question. On the
one hand, you have purists like Washington Post executive
editor Len
Downie, who is well known
for not voting lest it sully his objectivity. On the other, there are
journalists who contribute
money to political
candidates and think nothing of it. (Media Log's view: vote, yes;
give money, no.)
The Internet has only made this
more complicated. The latest example: Boston Globe technology
columnist Hiawatha Bray, who is the subject of a hyperventilating
piece on David Brock's
watchdog site MediaMatters.org.
The article reports that Bray wrote
posts to several weblogs during the past presidential campaign
criticizing John Kerry, praising George W. Bush, and passing along
the claims of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which cast a number of
aspersions on Kerry's record as a war hero. Virtually all of those
aspersions were proven false, a fact that Bray seems not to have
grasped.
The story has already been picked
up by Raw
Story and AlterNet,
so Bray is definitely in for a few days of razzing. Good thing he
wasn't cheerleading for Kerry, or Rush, Fox News, and the entire
right blogosphere would be going berserk.
It looks like Bray won't be posting
political comments in the future. When I asked him to respond to the
Media Matters article, he referred me to Globe spokesman Al
Larkin, who e-mailed to me the following statement:
Mr. Bray is a technology
reporter and did not cover the presidential campaign, other than a
minor technology-related story on very rare occasions. That said,
his blog postings were inappropriate and in violation of our
standards, and he was informed of that when we learned of them
last Fall. Mr. Bray was instructed to discontinue any such
postings, and to our knowledge he complied.
Mr. Bray was not a Globe
reporter on the Swift Boat Veterans matter, the presidential
primaries, or the general election campaign. Our coverage of those
subjects should be judged on its own merits, and we are confident
the coverage meets the standards of fairness, accuracy, and
honesty.
The Globe's statement raises
a larger issue: what constraints, if any, should there be on a
journalist who wishes to share his political views in forums other
than those provided by his employer? Clearly the Globe is
taking the conservative approach, which it has a right to do. But is
it the smartest course?
Bray, as it happens, has his own
blog, MonitorTan.com.
It appears to be devoted entirely to tech issues. If you search for
either "Kerry" or "Bush" for instance, you will get technology
stories about the campaign, not political rants. But the matter of
journalists having blogs not connected with their employers can be a
contentious issue.
In 2003, Hartford Courant
travel editor Denis Horgan was ordered to stop writing a personal
blog in which he had been expressing his opinion on any number of
subjects. Courant editor Brian
Toolan told the trade
magazine Editor & Publisher: "Denis Horgan's entire
professional profile is a result of his attachment to the Hartford
Courant, yet he has unilaterally created for himself a parallel
journalistic universe where he'll do commentary on the institutions
that the paper has to cover without any editing oversight by the
Courant. That makes the paper vulnerable."
That led blogger-journalist
J.D.
Lasica to write in disdain:
"Toolan and his merry band of control-niks believe that newsroom
employees are chattel. We can't have journalists expressing views
online because then someone somewhere might accuse them of not being
wholly chaste, objective, devoid of opinions."
Journalists who do have
their own independent blogs tread pretty carefully from what I've
seen. An example: Hub
Blog, by Boston
Herald business reporter Jay Fitzgerald, a project Fitzgerald
began before going to work at One Herald Square. Hub Blog is a
worthwhile read, but Fitzgerald's online persona is pretty much the
same as it is in print.
Increasingly, journalists write
blogs for their own news organizations. Media Log is an example of
that. But, like an independent blog, Media Log entries are not edited
before I post them. Instead, my editor and I talk about what's
working and what isn't, which is a kind of after-the-fact
editing.
I've also been known to shoot my
mouth off in such forums as Romenesko's
letters page and
Jay
Rosen's PressThink blog.
This is almost exactly analogous to what Hiawatha Bray did. The only
difference is that Bray was expressing opinions that he could never
get into the Globe, given his beat.
Unfortunately, these nuances are
completely missing from the Media Matters article on Bray. The
article claims that Bray covered the 2004 presidential campaign for
the Globe, which (as the Globe statement notes) really
isn't true; all he did was write a few stories on peripheral matters
involving technology. The article closes by noting that the
Globe is owned by the New York Times Company, and quotes from
the Times' ethics policy:
Journalists have no place
on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to
vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about
their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In
particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse
candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation.
(Note: the Globe has its own
ethics policy. The Times does not own the Globe;
rather, the Times Company owns both the Times and the
Globe.)
Bray, in his posts, not only raised
but answered questions about his neutrality. But he doesn't cover
politics, which means it's questionable as to whether he compromised
his professional neutrality. It might be different, for
instance, if he'd written online that Steve
Ballmer is the
Anti-Christ.
Moreover, Media Matters presents no
evidence that Bray campaigned for, demonstrated for, or endorsed
anyone. Rather, he was expressing his opinion. Should he be able to?
I say yes, but his editors obviously disagree.
posted at 5:05 PM |
17 comments
|
link
17 Comments:
You could see this coming. The Globe doesn't allow its sports people to appear on WEEI. Why would they not drift into other areas of communication,like the Web?
Bray is heard on WBZ from time to time discussing tech stuff. I've never heard him mention anything political.
I really don't care what he thinks of Kerry,or what he blogs about. But I do think the Globes standard should be that you can't plagiarize,libel anyone,or even lie about someone. In other words don't expect to write for the Globe but freakout on the I-net, in your own time.
I left journalism after 20 years in 1999 when I turned 40 because I just found it too restrictive to my personal life. I wanted to be more active in my community. I wanted to contribute to non-profits - many of whom might have fallen under coverage by me at some point _ and I wanted the freedom to express my opinion whether political or otherwise. I never have regretted it. For what it pays, the price to be a journalist at a major paper is too high a price to pay for any institution to rule over your life.
This is a tough nut, but I think the Globe is right. Newspapers have competitive issues to deal with, their own staff shouldn't be one of them.
In Bray's case specifically, I wouldn't him banging on his keyboard all day long about whatever he wants to, because I generally like his writing, but, well, don't wipe your butt with the hand that feeds you.
When you're a journalist, you're representing the organization you're writing for. If your outside activities in any way compromise your relationship with the journalistic entity, you need to choose whether you want to be a journalist or not. Otherwise, you're a columnist at best. The Jay Fitzgerald/Boston Herald situation is the exception; if the outside activity precedes the relationship with the paper, accomodations can be made.
What's Wrong With this Picture? ..
DK wrote:
Bray... pass[ed] along the claims of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which cast a number of aspersions on Kerry's record as a war hero. Virtually all of those aspersions were proven false, a fact that Bray seems not to have grasped. ..
Sorry, Dan, the Swifties and their Republican Right sponsors did not merely "cast aspersions," they orchestrated one of the most extensive disinformation campaigns and shameless character assassinations in a modern presidential election.
Their disinformation campaign was designed to deceive the average news consumer with dozens of seemingly-specific allegations that few people have the time or wherewithal to verify.
It deliberately exploited the process of pundits, commentators and activists promoting and repeating the bogus allegations on TV, talk radio, the web and in print.
That's how political disinformation campaigns work.
Bob Somerby demonstrated just how easily these ludicrous, self-contradictory, craven allegations were to disprove --and how few MSM "journalists" exposed them for what they were.
Bray has no excuse --he is a paid, professional journalist. No honest, professional could possibly have treated the Swiftie smears as anything more than propaganda unless they were themselves intending to promote it. ..
This ain't about journalists' free speech. It would be one thing if a reporter blogged that he liked Bush's leadership on terrorism or disliked the prospect of a Kerry presidency. It is another to promote a flagrant partisan smear that any J-school student could debunk in 10 minutes.
Have you no standards for accuracy?
Forgive for me being one of those freedom-comes-with-responsibility wafflers. I don't see any chilling effects here, but I think if Bray had kept his cool in his posts, nobody would have noticed. I think that the Globe is worried about is readers getting the impression that Bray is sloppy or winging it. A number of bloggers have promoted the idea of a blog being a place to be sloppy, but I reject that ideal. (see The Unbearable Lightness of Blogging)
Forgive for me being one of those freedom-comes-with-responsibility wafflers. I don't see any chilling effects here, but I think if Bray had kept his cool in his posts, nobody would have noticed. I think that the Globe is worried about is readers getting the impression that Bray is sloppy or winging it. A number of bloggers have promoted the idea of a blog being a place to be sloppy, but I reject that ideal. (see The Unbearable Lightness of Blogging)
Don't you see the blog, blogosphere, or whatever else it's called as nothing more than an expansion of Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park?
Whether Bray enters the silent scream stream or not, his voice has not one degree of merit as a journalist.
Personally, I find the nonsense he scribbles in what is presented as expertise considerably more offensive.
"Pehaps Kennedy should try searching another way, by Googling, for example, "monitortan.com", bush (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22monitortan.com%22%2C+bush&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8). He would then discover that "watha@monitortan.com" has the habit of forwarding politically significant articles to blogspots with his own personal opinion/editorial as a preface."
From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hiawatha_Bray
As a fellow business journo, I feel somewhat for Bray's situation. As we cover a market that is fairly unpolitical (for the most part - aside from editorial efforts to meld business and political issues in certain stories, etc.) it's easy to feel a greater sense of freedom when speaking on other topics, as I don't feel my political views ever compromise my ability to write about business objectively. The same could be said for almost anyone covering areas other than politics. Listen to the sports guys on WEEI offer up their own (strong) political views on a daily basis. People have feelings and will talk about them when provoked, this is life.
However, the problem is that Bray is using his identity as a Globe reporter to lend credibility to his online persona. There's no need for this, other than his own desire for recognition with his posts. It's hubris, as it is very easy to post and communicate online in an anonymous manner (hi there).
My advice to journos looking to post their thoughts and ideas online, outside of their areas of coverage and employer's boundaries, is to do so under a nickname or some other monniker that is not directly associated to their byline. I know a lot of journos who do so on various bulletin boards, etc. If you wanted to trace their tracks, most could probably be "outed" for who they really are, but as they are taking the effort to separate themselves at least by name, and to not reference their profession in their posts, I think this is the best approach.
Isn't the real issue here about scandal-mongering? As an employee of a newspaper of record, Mr. Bray publicly supported what was clearly a fabricated partisan attack on John Kerry by the Bush campaign. It wouldn't be any less wrong if a Globe business reporter publicly promoted Kitty Kelly's nonsense that Laura Bush sold marijuana in college or Jerry Falwell's absurd Bill Clinton murder conspiracies. Newspapers dealing in serious news have to have minimum standards around it's employees engaging in blatent rumor and innuendo.
"Virtually all of those aspersions were proven false, a fact that Bray seems not to have grasped."
Nor should he, since that's something that's only believed by partisan Kerry supporters who still can't believe their guy lost on the merits, and not some shadowy dirty-tricks campaign.
From Feb 10 comments on
Dan Gillmor's site:
I hold no brief for Mr. Gannon, but I'm still not sure I see what he or the White House did that's so terrible...
Posted by: Hiawatha Bray | February 10, 2005 12:20 PM
You're joking, Hiawatha, aren't you? Please tell me you're joking.
Posted by: Dan Gillmor
Of course, there is the possibility that the Globe is trying to protect itself from a future "bought journalist" scandal.
What if the writer in question is being funded by the Republicans to lend his name to the cause via the blog. I mean if the person so willingly participated in an obvious character assassination effort, trust becomes an issue for the Globe.
This is just another example of how blogs are a nightmare for the MSM.
Sure the Globe looks bad, but it's Brock and Media Matters who really get exposed.
Gee, I'm not a journalist, and I don't play one in any aspect of my life, including the time I spend sleeping. But I make every effort to not spread falsehood. Let's conclude, shall we, that "Hiawatha Bray the Brayer" is simply a nasty right wing asshole who has no concern for truth when it gets in the way of "winning".
That sort of ethos is pervasive across the personality; but don't expect the high-minded clean-white-shirt "Globe" to concern itself too closely with ethics. Recall the right wing "Globe" journalist who plagiarized (and who, as a media elitist, rants against media elitists), but didn't lose his job because the slap on the wrist was excruciatingly painful for the war-monger? (And because a media elitist.)
At a time when the print news media is being discredited by its own, and like never before in history being challenged for dominance by other media, one would think they would see the writing on the wall and clean up their act, and their house, as effort to regain credibility and survive. Instead, I would not be surprised if the "Globe" were to hire Armstrong Williams in order to expand into TeeVee, and "Jeff 'What's My Name Today?' Gannon" as not-so-White House reporter.
Partisan "conservative" extremist haters are the only ones who insist on claiming as true the smezrs against Kerry which were utterly and absolutely refuted. And those haters do so because they are at war against reason, standards, and truth, because they know that if they told the truth about where they are actually at, they would be tarred-and-feathered and run out of town for being totalitarians haters of democracy.
The shame of it is that they are too dense to grasp the fact that the first person adversely affected by their hating is the person closest to them: themselves.
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.