Blogs

"Discuss" as in "listen to what he says." The Rocky is no democracy.

What a joke. Both newspapers seem to think they're eliminating bias when at best they're eliminating the PERCEPTION of bias. Demanding that your reporters CONCEAL their political leanings in public doesn't exactly keep political bias out of the newspaper.

When the credibility of the press is in the crapper, eliminating the perception of bias is as important as eliminating the reality of bias. Telling your employees that they must steer clear of the caucuses is not a joke. It's good management; its good journalism; its a good business decision that protects the interests of the paper. The only people who aren't liking it are those who have political agendas. And newspapers aren't published to promote their agendas.

Caps lock key stuck, Victor?

This is the same situation as with civil servants. By setting down these rules an environment of professionalism is created and maintained.

Of course journalists have political opinions. That's not the point.

Now if we could only get similar rules in place for scientific researchers: Decide whether you want to collect data and test hypotheses experimentally, or if you'd rather interpret the resulting research in the context of its social and political implications. Don't do both.

Anyone who reads the Rocky must be snickering at any association of the term "disinterested neutrality" with the newspaper.

Michael has a valid point that rules to foster professionalism in this regard are necessary and appropriate. But Temple's arbitrary approach to simply ban all political involvement of any type by anyone in the newsroom is pretty problematic if the purpose is to strike a pose of "disinterested neutrality."

So, Vince Carroll who regularly posits political points of view is assumed to be a "disinterested neutral?" And Jeff Legwold, who rarely (if ever) writes about politics or public policy is assumed to compromise that "disinterested neutrality" in writing about the Broncos if he contributes $50 to a state senate candidate?

And how is the newspaper itself ever a "disinterested neutral" when its editorial page endorses political candidates by the boatload? Temple is reserving for his editorial page a right that he withholds from its staff. That is, in fact, a joke.

It may not be perfect, but Greg Moore's approach makes a bit more sense. That is, "We don't want you doing it, but if you do, use common sense and professionalism in deciding how you get involved." In other words, treat the news staff like adults.

While demanding "transparency" of other institutions, newspapers themselves try to cover up their own biases, and this is just another example.

What I'd like to see is both dailies publishing a breakdown of their staffs' political affiliations and explain what is done to make sure their leanings don't turn into slanted news coverage. Sadly, that will probably never happen, particularly the first part.

Right... the real problem with newspapers in terms of declining readership is the perception of bias...? So if the Post and the Rocky underwent the sort of ideological audit Rojo advocates than readers and advertisers would flock back? Really...

I'd say dailies would be better served writing stories that don't bore readers into a coma than excessive fretting over minute perceptions of impropriety.

There's any number of other countries where newspapers are more vital to mainstream discourse and no one expects a laboratory like state of so-called objectivity. Why do we expect it here. Oh right, decades of right wing think tank funded campaigns of "liberal media bias"...

Nice to see that someone at Time magazine is in step with my thinking:

http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/02/do_you_want_to_know_who_report.html