Do Journalists Belong in Protest Marches?

By: Randy Dotinga Penny Morang Richards, a former reporter at The Eagle-Tribune in Lawrence, Mass., bit her tongue during the community meetings she covered, even though she often wanted to give the audience a piece of her mind.

But she followed different rules off the job. Richards proudly displayed the campaign sign of a state legislator candidate on her lawn and even got herself appointed to a town mobile-home commission.

Her editors were less than thrilled by her activities, recalls Richards, who now works in marketing. But she stood firm. "I can appreciate the newspaper's point of view, but we're people too. We've got lives to lead, and we've got opinions and thoughts."

But shouldn't reporters stifle at least a few of their views when they pick up a press pass? Good question. Unfortunately, newspapers aren't much closer to a consensus than they were 10 years ago when Richards was a reporter.

Newspaper ethics policies often sternly decry conflicts of interest but lack specifics about what kinds of political activities are allowed, said Keith Woods, group leader of reporting, writing, and editing at The Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. "One of the problems is that journalists often act without clear guidance about what's permissible and what isn't."

When the war in Iraq arrived, however, some newspapers scrambled to define the do's and don'ts. On the one hand, the normally liberal San Francisco Chronicle made waves by expressly forbidding its newsroom employees from publicly protesting, and one technology reporter got sacked in what he claims was a dust-up over his anti-war activities.

On the other hand, The San Diego Union-Tribune -- not known as a bastion of liberalism -- told its employees they could march as long as they weren't covering war-related issues. At the Minneapolis Star Tribune, meanwhile, the protest issue didn't make waves, but a few newsies continued to drive to work in cars plastered with bumper stickers supporting senate candidates Norm Coleman and the late Paul Wellstone.

Woods would like to see more ethics policies make it clear that journalists can't engage in "overt political activity," such as putting up campaign signs and contributing to candidates. He thinks the rules should apply to anyone whose "fingerprints" might end up on the newspaper.

By doing so, "the news organization is saying to the public that it's maintaining as unbiased a position as possible in its coverage," Woods said. "It doesn't mean coverage is unbiased. It just means we're doing the best we can."

But Craig D. Rose, a Union-Tribune business reporter who protested against the war, said strict rules shouldn't apply to journalists whose jobs don't deal with the political issue at hand. "The right of free speech is what the business is founded on," he said. "That's not something you're going to surrender."

Rose's views are shared by the Newspaper Guild, which negotiates ethics policies at newspapers it represents. In the 1980s, the union successfully fought for a Kentucky reporter who was fired after she won a race for a local school board, said guild President Linda Foley.

"If you're the food editor, how does that in any way reflect on your coverage of food and restaurants if you go march in an anti-war protest?" she asked. "It doesn't any more than if you're the political reporter and go to church. It's the same type of thing."

If they run afoul of ethics policies, journalists may have recourse in the law. At least 20 states have laws that prevent employers from taking action against workers who engage in lawful activities outside work, said Lisa Klerman, an employment attorney with the Los Angeles law firm of Morrison & Foerster.

But in a landmark 1997 case, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled against a Tacoma reporter whose editors ordered her to stop her political activity in favor of gay rights. The court said newspapers didn't fall under a state law preventing employer retribution against politically active workers. Free press rights under the U.S. Constitution, the court said, protect a newspaper's right to enforce conflict-of-interest policies without government interference.

California has a similar law, and the fired San Francisco Chronicle reporter hopes to test it soon. Will people who work for a free press get the right to engage in free speech without threatening their jobs? Stay tuned.