TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/081489/08148900.015

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 5.6 KB | 111 lines

                                                                                PRESS, Page 45

To March or Not to March


Reporters' own beliefs about abortion become an issue


    A female reporter who takes part in a pro-choice march is
reprimanded by her editors. Another woman, a food critic, is
upset because her employer's policy against political activism
all but prohibits her from publicly expressing her views on
abortion -- an issue that she will probably never have to cover.
Across the country, the heating up of the abortion issue in
recent months has confronted reporters with an acute
professional dilemma: How can they personally take a public
stand on a question they feel strongly about without seeming to
compromise the objectivity of the publication for which they
work?

    Not since the peak of the anti-Viet Nam War movement in the
late 1960s have so many reporters felt the urge to stand up and
be counted on a national question. And as with Viet Nam, the
dilemma is more pressing for reporters who espouse the liberal
side of the issue. "To me, the struggle for abortion rights is
as important to women as the struggle against slavery," says a
Chicago Tribune reporter. "This isn't about whether they're
going to build some bridge downtown. This is about my body."

    Yet, as more and more journalists feel compelled in their
private lives to take sides on abortion, they are increasingly
running up against policies of their news organizations that
discourage or forbid such advocacy. Thus a debate is currently
simmering in newsrooms, editorial offices and journalism
schools over the rights of reporters to express their personal
views vs. the rights of their employers to restrain them in the
name of preserving their publication's reputation for fairness
in news coverage.

    The current debate was sparked by last April's pro-choice
march in Washington. One week after the demonstration, in which
more than 300,000 people from around the country participated,
the New York Times disclosed that its Supreme Court reporter
Linda Greenhouse had marched, in violation of the paper's
policy. The Washington Post also admitted that several of its
reporters had taken part. It ordered those who had done so to
abstain from covering abortion-related stories in the future.

    Since then, several papers, including the Post, have
reiterated their policies limiting outside political activity
by reporters. Some have even begun holding ethics seminars in
the newsroom to underscore the point.

    Most news organizations, including TIME, impose no blanket
restrictions on outside political activity so long as it is
unrelated to a reporter's regular field. But others frown on
any political advocacy. The Times, which plans to clarify its
policy, declines to "explicitly say that journalists can't
participate in a movement that is far afield from their beats,"
says assistant managing editor Warren Hoge. "But I sure wish
they wouldn't." The Post takes a more hard-line position: its
reporters are discouraged from engaging in any political
activities, including community affairs, regardless of what they
cover. Many Post editorial employees, however, were unaware of
this long-standing policy until the controversy erupted over the
Washington march last spring. Says managing editor Leonard
Downie Jr.: "Some found it kind of shocking that they are called
on not to exercise some of their personal rights so that the
paper can vigorously defend its own First Amendment rights."

    For many reporters and editors, that is a necessary
trade-off in order to enjoy the benefits of the profession.
"When you decide to become a journalist," says the Post's
venerable political reporter and columnist David Broder, "you
accept a lot of inhibitions that come with the responsibility
of being part of a private business that performs a very
important public service."

    An equally troubling -- and more elusive -- issue is
whether journalists can cover stories in which they begin with
strong personal convictions. A. Kent MacDougall, a journalism
professor at the University of California, Berkeley, marched
against the Viet Nam War while working on the staff of the Wall
Street Journal. Defending his activities in a 1970 Journal op-ed
piece, MacDougall wrote, "A well-trained reporter with pride in
his craft won't allow his beliefs to distort his stories, any
more than a Republican surgeon will botch an appendectomy on a
Democrat."

    All reporters have personal opinions on a wide range of
issues, just like everyone else, even if they do not choose to
proclaim them publicly. The best solution for journalists with
strong political beliefs is to disqualify themselves from
covering stories on which they feel their reporting cannot be
fair. Deni Elliott of Dartmouth's Institute for the Study of
Applied and Professional Ethics believes every reporter has at
least one such issue.

    The dialogue is certain to intensify in coming months
because of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Webster v.
Reproductive Health Services. As state legislatures begin to
tackle abortion questions, newsrooms across the country will be
faced with the tension between personal opinions and public
actions. The large Washington pro-choice rally planned for
November could prove to be a major test case for reporters
determined to march. One journalist who will not be there: the
New York Times's Greenhouse, whose last foray into the public
arena originally sparked the debate. Says Greenhouse: "I don't
intend to make a martyr of myself. I wouldn't want to do
anything to undermine the credibility and objectivity of the
profession."