By Joel Thurtell
What if we lived in a country where companies could ban employees from voting?
How democratic would that be?
Well, it hasn’t happened. But it could.
And there is an industry where political activity already is looked at askance.
In that industry, political activity is considered by some as nefarious behavior unbecoming a professional practitioner.
What industry am I thinking of?
Newspapers, specifically, and Journalism in general.
I was aware when I was a reporter at the Detroit Free Press that at least one reporter refused to vote on the grounds that it showed a political preference and therefore a bias.
And reporters, you know, are not supposed to be biased.
Of course, that’s poppycock.
All of us have opinions about everything that happens to us. It’s human nature. Simply to refrain from voting is no sign that a person doesn’t hold opinions. If not voting is meant to somehow suppress opinions, it fails. The opinions are still there, even if they’re unexpressed.
Now, I could see not voting if a citizen, upon reflection, couldn’t stand any of the candidates or their political views. In that case, not voting is at least expressing an opinion. It is a form of choice.
Not voting out of fear it will reveal a political preference defeats the aim of democracy. Of course we reveal our preference and indeed our opinion and yes, too, a bias by voting. That’s the point. One or two votes here, a few more there make an aggregate that expresses the people’s will.
Voting is how we select the people who will govern us. Not to vote is bailing out of the democratic process.
When journalists tell me they don’t vote because they want to preserve their impartiality, I sense an unspoken other reason for taking that position: It differentiates this person from the general masses. It is a sacrifice made on the altar of objective Journalism. The Journalist who has withdrawn from society and politics to the extent that he or she will not participate in democracy is setting him/herself apart from the masses.
Not only is this nonvoting Journalist different from the rest of humanity, but the Journalist-purist is also superior.
In his or her view.
I’ve gotten this sense from some Journalists who responded with hostility to my donation of $500 to Michigan Democrats four years ago. You can read about my case in my blog category called “Arbitration.” Earlier this year, The Newspaper Guild and I won the case against the Free Press and its owner, Gannett. An arbitrator ruled that Free Press managers were wrong to ban employees from taking part in politics by making political contributions to parties or candidates. Now, the Free Press had not banned voting. But after editors learned in June 2007 — three years after the fact — of my donation, they amended the paper’s ethics policy to ban political donations. And they threatened to fire me if I made future contributions. Strong stuff.
(Here is equally strong stuff: A Michigan law, the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, bars employers from tracking workers’ political activity. It appears to me that the Free Press bigwigs were violating that law when they made an issue of my politics.)
If an ethics policy can ban political activity, and that’s what my donation was, then it can also forbid employees to vote. They can put anything they want into those ethics policies, and they can try to enforce them.
But no edict from management is needed for the elect. Some Journalists try what appears to be self-policing. I received an email from a Journalist who said he could never trust my reporting because I’d given money to a political party. It’s quite an amazing statement when you think about it. I gave money to a political party, so that makes me a liar? What about all the non-Journalists who give money to candidates or political causes? Are they liars, too?
Everybody, every institution, is in the political game. How many Journalists give money to the Detroit Symphony Orchestra? I do. The orchestra has a political agenda. They seek financial aid from various governments. That means they lobby governments. Okay, what about churches? How many Journalists give money to religious institutions? But churches and religious organizations have political agendas, don’t they? Isn’t the Catholic church opposed to abortion? That’s a matter of government policy. Controversial, too. Don’t churches need charters for private schools? Where do they get them? The government, right?
The orchestra, the churches, arts councils, even the Boy Scouts, they all are politically involved. Nobody calls them a liar. Nobody says because they support this or that cause, they are dishonest. And nobody says that Journalists who give them money are liars.
Ah yes, but Journalists are supposed to report what happens. How can they do that effectively and honestly if they are involved politically?
Well, here’s how: They can be fair. They can listen to all sides and give each a voice. What more do you want?
But this Journalistic elitism concerns me. There’s a movement afoot to have Congress enact a law to shield reporters from having to testify in trials. It’s meant to protect Journalists from having to name their sources to prosecutors trying criminal cases.
What makes Journalists different from other human beings? Isn’t the rest of the citizenry obliged to testify in trials in order to ensure justice is done? What would exempt a reporter? The fact that he or she doesn’t vote or make political contributions?
There is no aristocracy of Journalism. This is a democracy. We are all entitled to vote. Not voting does not make anyone better than his or her peers. We are all entitled to take part in politics, and that includes donating money to political causes.
And we are all obligated to testify if ordered by a court to give evidence.
Our democracy is for everybody, Journalists included.
Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com
