Voting and Journalism

Plaissance's chapter on autonomy discusses several interesting questions regarding the extent to which individuals involved in media and communications can exercise various freedoms and rights. I thought it was particularly interesting when Plaissance brought up the idea that some journalists will forgo registering to vote in order to avoid "being suspected of advocating an agenda in their work" (Media Ethics, 154). It's a peculiar paradox—in order to uphold their credibility and dispel any suspicions of acting like an autonomous force, some journalists will relinquish this essentially fundamental right. The right to vote has attached to it the connotation of representing freedom to the ultimate degree, and I find it fascinating that there are journalists out there that are so dedicated to providing unbiased and objective coverage, that they will bring their work into their personal life to that extent. They're not just working as journalists—they're living as journalists.

In this collaborative article, three journalists express their reasons for voting or not voting while covering elections. Mike Allen explains why he decides not to vote: "The candidates I’d been covering — and the readers who trusted me — could see me and know that I wasn't neutral in my heart." Jim VandeHei takes a similar approach stating, "It is our job to do everything plausible to divorce ourselves from political bias as we try to earn the trust of readers and report as evenhandedly as humanly possible." However, John F. Harris disagrees with both men. He says, "Being a journalist for an ideologically neutral publication like Politico, or the Washington Post, where I used to work, does not mean having no opinions. It means exercising self-discipline in the public expression of those opinions so as not to give sources and readers cause to question someone’s commitment to fairness." He essentially claims that a journalist should be capable of distancing himself from his opinions when necessary, but relinquishing the right to vote isn't going to necessarily guarantee that.

I sympathize more with Harris in this argument, although I do understand why Allen and VandeHei choose to refrain from voting. I think the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics creates some ambiguity on this topic when it states that journalists should "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" (Media Ethics, 144). This idea of "perceived conflicts of interests" makes journalists wary of disclosing their opinions, even outside of their work. How do you define the perception of a conflict of interest? It's a bit of a grey area and very subjective, thus I can see why many journalists prefer to avoid it altogether rather than risk their credibility.