TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/081489/08148900.015

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 6KB | 101 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."