Bullies of the newsroom

By Joel Thurtell

Normally, I don’t reply to comments people post on my blog.

But now and then one of these letters-to-JOTR is just too obnoxious, too disingenuous to let pass.

So it is with a reader’s response to my September 18, 2009 “Harvard and the hypocrites” post.

A commenter wrote:

“Harvard” didn’t agree with you. A kid who has never done a day’s work in a newspaper newsroom wrote an essay agreeing with you. Some ratification!

You were a reporter, and you gave money to a political party, and you think that helps your credibility?

Big dose of anger there.

Where to start?

Well, it seems like a longer form of a congressman’s yelp at President Obama of “you lie!”

First, there’s the “kid” thing — the gratuitous suggestion of childishness about the author of a Nieman Reports essay exploring the ethics of newsroom behavior codes that ban political expression by editorial employees of news organizations. With this slur, the commenter wishes us to think that the essay itself is not quite full=grown, that it is the work of an immature person.

It is one of the red herrings the commenter tosses out to distract us from the crux of our subject, which is denial of political freedom to journalists — who are, after all, American citizens — because they are journalists.

But it’s worth stopping for a moment to reflect on what our reactions might have been had the commenter, instead of “kid,” used a term like “black” or “Muslim” or “woman” or for that matter “oldster,” suggesting that such people are incapable of reasoned analysis.

Bigotry comes in many guises.

That the “kid” is old enough to be a veteran of U.S. military service is a fact, but it is not relevant. If the ideas put forth in Reed Richardson’s Nieman essay, and on in The Nation, were written by a pre-schooler, they still would be important. We should judge the article on the merits of its research and argument, not on the author’s age.

The next gratuitous insult, also a red herring, suggests that 1) the Nieman Reports and Nation writer never worked in a newsroom and implies 2) that this is somehow relevant to the discussion. It is not, unless we accept the notion that the only people competent to opine about issues important to the practice of journalism and human rights are people who’ve worked in newsrooms. Presumably, though I don’t know, the commenter works or once upon a time worked in a newsroom.

So what?

If sweating in a newsroom somehow qualifies a person as an expert on journalism issues, what does that mean? Well, what qualifications does it take to be employed in a typical American newsroom?

College degree?

Nope.

License?

Unlike, hairdressers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, lawyers and doctors, journalists don’t need to meet minimal standards of professionalism, intelligence and knowledge to ply their trade. You work in a newsroom, you’re ipso factor one of the club.

This fraternity mentality is part of the problem. It’s no accident that the Society of Professional Journalists used to be called “Sigma Delta Chi.” Power is the name of the game. It’s all about who’s “in” and who’s “out.”

The slurs about being a “kid” and not having paid dues as a newsroom drudge are typical of the bullying that often substitutes for discussion in news organizations. It doesn’t help that victims of this outrageous behavior must always consider that management could discipline or fire them if they own up to having expressed political opinions.

It’s pretty hard to think independently and express yourself in an environment where doing so could cost you your job.

I can’t help wondering if the newspaper industry would be in such dire straits today if more journalists had been accustomed to think freely and express themselves openly. One of the most telling moments in my confrontation with Gannett over my donation to the Democrats came with a company letter stating that employees of privately-owned news organizations don’t have First Amendment rights.

Think about that: Newspaper reporters, editors, photographers — the whole editorial clan — do not, in the company’s view, possess free speech rights that are so dear to the publishers of newspapers.

There’s a lot wrong with American journalism, but it doesn’t look to me like employees of newsrooms or their bosses are in any position to fix it.

And then there’s the remark suggesting I think Harvard “ratified” my position that journalists have human rights that include taking part in our democratic political process. Harvard ought to, but at least their journalism review published an essay stating that principle.

It’s hard for me to fathom how we could have such a thing as a democratic political process if private corporations forbid their employees taking part in the process. And yet that is what the news industry has done.

Who has more integrity, the reporter who proclaims his/her political leaning via bumper stickers, lawn signs and political donations, or the stealth journalist who keeps his/her political leanings secret but nonetheless acts on them in choosing, rejecting, or reporting, writing and editing news articles?

I didn’t need Harvard to “ratify” my position. The arbitrator agreed with me and my union and ordered my then employer, the Detroit Free Press, to lift its ban on political acitivity by newspaper staffers.

But the fact that a Harvard journal published an essay supporting this point of view is huge. Certainly, in 2004, when I donated $500 to Michigan Democrats, no publication was making the kind of case Reed Richardson made in September 2009. That was equally true in 2007, when the Free Press honchos banned my further political activity and threatened to fire me if I disobeyed.

Thanks to The Newspaper Guild, my case was argued and won and there is now a precedent on record for upholding the political rights of journalists.

As for my credibility, when I was a reporter, I was pretty frank about my politics in and outside the newsroom. I never heard a reader complain that I lacked credibility. Two years into retirement, I’m still being asked to speak and have 10 talks on my calendar this fall and more coming up in 2010. Apparently, my audiences find me a credible person.

True, I did hear complaints, but they came from a few newsroom peers and, of course, the very managers whom the arbitrator ordered to quit squelching staffers’ rights.

Drop me a line at joelthurtel@gmail.com