Can journalists vote and be objective?

Guest · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:36 pm

In another post, I was talking about how, as a journalist and as a person, I am objective to a fault -- I can't come to a conclusion on ANYTHING. I have no firm opinion on abortion, capital punishment, the death penalty, the existence of a Christian God, the merits of non-dairy whipped toppings, etc. I always feel that as soon as I come close to making up my mind, some new information or perspective comes along that makes me step back and say, "Hmmm ... I'd better not commit to an opinion until I look into this further." It's frustrating, and, as I said, no more so than election time. I try to be a good newsperson and a good citizen by scrupulously studying the issues and candidates. But, with the exception of a few obviously poorly written initiatives or clearly unsuited candidates, I largely can't make up my mind about how to vote because I worry that there's some fact or viewpoint I haven't seen or heard yet ... and so, for the most part, wind up not voting on much of anything. You should have seen me a few years ago trying to parse the Bush-Gore-Nader tangle, ideologically and pragmatically, in my mind as my pencil hovered above my ballot -- I nearly burst a brain stem trying to make myself make a choice that ultimately I could not make.Am I the only journalist here who struggles with this on election day? Or do you, too, wrestle with objectivity versus partisan decisiveness? If it's easy for you, how? And why? How do you dig through the detritus? How do you approach your "American duty" and still hold your head high? I wish I knew.

Finn DeSiecle · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:24 pm

I think I can both vote and be objective as an editor, perhaps precisely because I'm also neither conservative or liberal; I'm more a radical moderate. I see shades of gray in damn near everything, even the question of "absolute morality" vs. "moral relativism" -- but I still end up holding opinions. It's just that my opinions have more "yes, but..." and "depending on..." clauses than those of the average politician. Where politics turns me off is in its tendency toward knee-jerk, quick-fix responses to problems (California's "three strikes" sentencing law is a prime example).So how do I make a decision when it comes time to vote? Frankly -- and sadly -- many times, I end up basing my choice on whom I disagree with the least; since many politicians today like to stake out inflexible positions on the issues, I go looking for the one whose particular inflexible position seems less likely to do damage. Often, for me that means whichever candidate is more centrist, but not always -- I've been appalled by some "middle-of-the-roaders' " proposals too.All of the above probably explains why we have no Moderate Party -- they'd never agree on a platform.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2002 8:14 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Am I the only journalist here who struggles with this on election day? <hr></blockquote>Yes, you are. It's very easy for me to say, definitively and with absolute confidence, that you are the only one who struggles so. Finn's being too kind. In the spirit of camaraderie, I would strongly suggest that you refrain from all public debate and discussion indefinitely. Observe for a while; orient yourself. Take a long rest, son. Adopt a cat. Don't worry, everything will be OK.

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
In another post, I was talking about how, as a journalist and as a person, I am objective to a fault -- I can't come to a conclusion on ANYTHING. I have no firm opinion on abortion, capital punishment, the death penalty, the existence of a Christian God, the merits of non-dairy whipped toppings, etc. <hr></blockquote>
OK, i can see arguing about abortion, capital punishment, God, yada yada ... but the merits of non-dairy whipped toppings stand on their own.

dmfugitive · **Posted:** Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:41 am

Jeez, bro, if it's taking that much out of you, don't vote. Plenty of people don't vote, and they don't get tied up in knots over elections, either. Others look at the menu and just pick whatever appeals to them most. Or they, gasp, vote their wallets, like me. Either way, at some point you have to get off the damn pot. There will always be "some fact or viewpoint I haven't seen or heard yet." Chop-chop. There are people waiting in line behind you. On the objectivity question: No, you can't be objective, not if you've spent a day in the real world. That's true regardless of whether you vote. You can be fair, however. I think I heard that at ACES or something.

gullyj · **Posted:** Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:01 pm

Can a cop reporter break the speed limit and still interview the police chief?
Can a business reporter contribute to a registered retirement saving plan and still write about the stock market?
Can a city hall reporter complain about a sinkhole in the road in front of his or her house and still write about municipal issues.
Can an environment reporter take a crap and still write about the privatization of sewage treatment plants?
Can a hooker have sex just for the fun of it?
Journalists who argue they cannot vote in order to remain objective -- and I know a few -- need to get some real problems in their lives to deal with.[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: canuck ]

Guest · **Posted:** Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:20 pm

I agree.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:52 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr> I agree <hr></blockquote>Then why publicly post illogical entries from your personal journal in the first place?

Guest · **Posted:** Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:12 pm

Because you gave me something new to think about. I appreciate it.

Testy Copy Editors

Can journalists vote and be objective?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links