There is a longtime practice in journalism to discourage writers and editors from getting into political activism (much less signing their names to it) in the name of remaining impartial...But a lot of traditional unwritten ethical rules and standards (some good, some bad) have been thrown out the window...

I knew a couple of real old-school editors who said you were compromising your impartiality by even voting...

Right, left or center.

For the record, this means that increasingly I will not sign them.

Some reporters take it so far as not voting. To me that is stupid, especially when the vote is secret.

... why are typesetters, secretaries and accountants subject to any such "rules"?

One of the largest paper groups in the US.

And typesetters are considered part of the media.

.... kinda like the camera operators at Fox.

doesn't allow one freedom of Political choice and expression (outside of the news, that is - which of course THEY violate every day!) ?

Not sure where you see Gannett's bias. It's not TV, which seems to have more editorializing. However, the newspaper is supposed to remain impartial, except for on it's editorial pages. Individual reporters are supposed to cover news, not make news. So, yes, they, the are prohibited from taking political action.

I'm not seeing that you have not seen violations in the media, but newspapers generally hold to higher standard, and this is specifically addressing Wisconsin's Gannett group.

Both are considered "being a good citizen."

If reporters can't sign petitions without being considered impartial then should they vote?

We don't know if any of these reporters covered the Walker case, FWIW. I would think a sports reporter or the person on the police beat wouldn't have a conflict (unless Walker gets arrested or plays with the local high school football team).

However, signing a petition is not done in public and indicates bias. Voting is done in private and is secret.

Most papers have a blanket policy. Reporters shift around and staffs are so small that many do double duty. It would be too hard to decide on each case individually. Can you imagine? Jim, Sue and Paul, you can sign if you want but Tim, Jeff and Cathy can't. Too many people and too many possibilities.

money to Giffords and another candidate in the last election. MSNBC suspended him "indefinitely" until the outrage of his viewers caused them to reinstate him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2008/11/10/keith-olbermann-does-the_n_142749.html

I also knew plenty of news reporters and writers who would avoid voting as they felt it was a conflict of interest in the subjects they were covering. At several stations I worked at our news people lived in a different district/towns so that they wouldn't be "biased" in their writing or reporting. Those days are loooooong gone now.

A petition has to be verified and the names checked to be sure they're legit as opposed to a vote that is supposed to remain private. Thus anyone who signed the recall petitions were doing so openly and publicly.

The bottom line is these people did know that signing the petition was against company rules and did so willingly.

If they choose to, that's their prerogative - but they may not be disallowed by order of their employer.

Many old school reporters report the facts, and feel that voting clouds their neutrality.

It's been that way for over 100 years. It is the last 25 years or so that we have seen the rise of very partisan press, which like it's predecessor in the 1900s is NOT serving the public.

WE ARE COMMITTED TO:
* Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way
* Serving the public interest
* Exercising fair play
* Maintaining independence
* Acting with integrity

Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way

* We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context.
* We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news.
* We will be persistent in the pursuit of the whole story.
* We will keep our word.
* We will hold factual information in opinion columns and editorials to the same standards of accuracy as news stories.
* We will seek to gain sufficient understanding of the communities, individuals and stories we cover to provide an informed account of activities.

Serving the public interest

* We will uphold First Amendment principles to serve the democratic process.
* We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public.
* We will provide the news and information that people need to function as effective citizens.
* We will seek solutions as well as expose problems and wrongdoing.
* We will provide a public forum for diverse people and views.
* We will reflect and encourage understanding of the diverse segments of our community.
* We will provide editorial and community leadership.
* We will seek to promote understanding of complex issues.

Exercising fair play

* We will treat people with dignity, respect and compassion.
* We will correct errors promptly.
* We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story and not take sides in news coverage.
* We will explain to readers our journalistic processes.
* We will give particular attention to fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with the press.
* We will use unnamed sources as the sole basis for published information only as a last resort and under specific procedures that best serve the public's right to know.
* We will be accessible to readers.

Maintaining independence

* We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report.
* We will maintain an impartial, arm's length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.
* We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content.
* We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers and advertisers.
* We will differentiate advertising from news.

Acting with integrity

* We will act honorably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and our colleagues.
* We will obey the law.
* We will observe common standards of decency.
* We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.
* We will be conscientious in observing these Principles.
* We will always try to do the right thing.

Note:
No statement of principles and procedures can envision every circumstance that may be faced in the course of covering the news. As in the United States Constitution, fundamental principles sometimes conflict. Careful judgment and common sense must be applied to make the decisions that best serve the public interest and result in the greatest good.

To help protect these Principles, practices have been drafted to address such subjects as unnamed sources, correcting errors and other issues. These guidelines have been distributed within the newsroom and are available upon request.

This newspaper and its news professionals are committed to observing the highest standards of journalism, as expressed by these Principles.

******

Except possibly these: We will maintain an impartial, arm's length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.
* We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content.''

But I think this statement trumps: As in the United States Constitution, fundamental principles sometimes conflict.

They can't take away your right to participate as an individual in the political process!

which I'm sure clearly spells out that journalists can't be politically engaged. They can vote, but many old-schoolers even abstain from that.

Many employers impose policies that take away your rights as a condition of employment. You can take the to court or leave the job, but, yes, employers can take away your right to engage politically. It's part of the personnel policy and you agree to that as a condition of employment.

You can't LEGALLY take away a person's right to VOTE.

Can you say "lawsuit' ?

From my post: "They ***can*** vote, but many old-schoolers even abstain from that."

I said many journalists, especially the older ones, just don't vote as a matter of conscience. Please take time to read the NYT rules on political engagement.

Your vote is secret...signing a peition is not. A name has to be checked to verify its who the petitioner says it is. When a person accepts a job with that company they're told up front about getting involved with politics and signing a petition is considered crossing that line. It's not prohibiting their right to vote...they can do that all they want (and I'll bet there's a clause in their contracts that prevent them from publicly disclosing those choices) in an effort to enable the paper to remain as objective as possible and maintain a wall between those who report the news and those who are the news.

"They can't take away your right to participate as an individual in the political process!"

First, what they are taking away is people "right" to work for Gannet, which is not a right.

Can Brian Williams do a commercial endorsing Romney? Of course he can, and nothing can stop him... but NBC would fire him for cause.

Second, can an employer limit people's constituional rights? In many, many cases yes. An employer cannot sanction you for voting, which is a secret and private act. And a person cannot agree to chattel slavery by contract. But beyond that...

Could Planned Parenthood sanction that wing-nut for exercising her political rights? Yes, of course.

Could the Southern Poverty Law Center fire someone for belonging to the Michigan Militia?

There are some employers who do not allow themselves to be associated with certain political things.

In the case of journalistic enterprises the concern is not partiusan but categorical. Their stance is apolitical and their employees cannot do overtly political things while in their employ.

It's normal.

Remeber when Olbermann was sanctioned for campaign contributions?

Yeah, right

They should be considered as private as voting.

The only exposure should be with the GAB verification procedure. There should be no reason to challenge once the GAB has done adequate verification.

Any invalid signatures should be covered by the GAB's quota.

And they don't have to count every damn signature, a sample will show how many invalids there are and then a statistician can decide how many samples they need to review to be sure there are enough valids. Once that number is achieved, the rest are redundant and the box can be re-sealed.

Making the signatures public is inviting repercussions on the signers.

Petitions don't have the same protections as voting. You may not agree, but that doesn't change what is. Also, please read the ethics guidelines posted. I don't have them for Gannett, but they all follow the basic template.

Secrecy is not the issue. They shouldn't have done it and violated the rules that they had agreed to. It's a fire-able offense, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were cut. At the very least, they are facing substantial suspensions.

I am not disagreeing with the newspapers having the policy they do. Nor am I disagreeing with the newspapers disciplining the employees who agreed to the policy, when the company becomes aware that the employee violated the company policy.

However the employees have a right to their own politics. If the law would allow them to keep it private and if they follow the employer's guidelines on keeping their politics out of their work then there is no problem.

It only becomes a problem when the signatures are public since accusations of partiality, true or not, can become an issue on its' own.

If the employer does not have access to the signatures then they do not know who signed. And the employee should not be forced to implicate him/herself.

The GAB policy has implications for other situations besides those of the journalists. Other employers may not have a policy like the newspapers but may punish the signers anyway.

But like you said, that is not the way it is.

"Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements or sign advertisements or petitions taking a position on public issues. "

If Gannett has a similar statement, you are saying that your issue is that the staff could not lie or deceive and get away with it,

since they employees contracted with the knowledge they were giving up their rights then they also must accept the consequences.

In other situations where there is no restriction by contract the signers may be intimidated and fear signing. That limits our democracy needlessly.

I would protect the signer's privacy but allow the board to verify.

It is the policy (and law) of every election board in the U.S. Anyone can look at petition signatures.

http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#B

Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues

89. Journalists do not take part in politics. While staff members are entitled to vote and to register in party primaries, they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of our news operations. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics.

90. Staff members may not themselves give money to any political candidate or election cause or raise money for one. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributions, any political giving by a staff member would risk feeding a false impression that we are taking sides.

91. No staff member may seek public office anywhere. Seeking or serving in public office violates the professional detachment expected of a journalist. Active participation by one of our staff can sow a suspicion of favoritism in political coverage.

92. Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements or sign advertisements or petitions taking a position on public issues. They may not lend their names to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or their newsroom's ability to remain neutral in covering the news. Neighbors and other outsiders commonly see us as representatives of our institution.

93. Staff members may appear from time to time on local or national radio and television programs devoted to public affairs, but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond the news and analysis that could properly appear under their regular bylines. Op-Ed columnists and editorial writers enjoy more leeway than others in speaking publicly, because their business is expressing opinions. They should nevertheless choose carefully the forums in which they appear and protect the impartiality of our journalism.

94. A staff member with doubts about a proposed political activity should consult a responsible manager. These guidelines protect the heart of our mission as journalists. Where the conflict with our impartiality seems minimal, top news executives may consider matters case by case, but they should be exceedingly cautious before permitting an exception.


Most newspapers have similar policies.

so I think that they have found the right balance.

Are you saying that we should have more bias in newspapers? Granted, of course, they are on your side.

Frankly, I'm wondering I haven't been accused of it yet in this thread.

I meant more to the left of the NYT anyway. But feel free to put words in my mouth and then alert on me.

On edit: To make the point more clear, a newspaper should try its best to be impartial and not be on anyone's side. If both sides are pissed, you have found the middle ground, although people would naturally want the newspaper on their side, whether it is left or right. Ethics policies are a framework for trying to achieve that neutrality.

Considering that the Supreme Court has continuously equated money with speech, number 90 on that list is in direct violation of their 1st amendment rights.

It's been covered.

against them... such as a boycott.

These are national professional standards.

Why I have pretty much signed my last petition, Et al as of six months ago.

If your identity as a reporter is hidden, how long would it be before some stalker outs that?

I mean, if you are a reporter, and all.

I am not working for or against any candidate b

Ids likes ta reads them puleeze

I equate it more with voting. It's done quietly and without any expectation of fanfare. At least that's the way it was for me when I signed it.

I can't speak about a journalist's code of ethics, those are just my personal feelings. I don't think they did anything wrong by signing a petition.

92. Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements or sign advertisements or ***petitions *** taking a position on public issues.

I don't have the wording on Gannetts, but it is like similar as it is standard industry practice.

Think about it this way: Would you want the reporters in your community marching against abortion or lobbying for social services cuts? If you do away with the standards, it would be a free for all on both sides. And since most papers are owned by media conglomerates, guess which side would be even louder.

And, don't bring up Fox. It has nothing to do with the ethical practice of journalism.

If you signed a contract, it is irrelevant if there is any fanfare when you violate it.

Signing a petition is a legitimate part of the political process and is not the same thing as using your position as a media spokesperson to publicly advocate for or against a particular political position or candidate.